Model comparison
Composer 2 vs Kimi K2.6
Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Composer 2 unranked; Kimi K2.6 #13
Evidence parity. Composer 2 and Kimi K2.6 share 3 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Composer 2; 57 to Kimi K2.6.
Updated July 13, 2026- Shared results
- 3
- Composer 2 only
- 2
- Kimi K2.6 only
- 57
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Kimi K2.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Composer 2 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Kimi K2.6 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 74 to 62. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Kimi K2.6's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 72.6 against 58. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 61.7% to 66.7%.
Kimi K2.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.95 input / $4.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.50 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Composer 2. Kimi K2.6 gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for Composer 2.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Composer 2 | Δ | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Composer 258.0 | Margin→ 14.6 | Kimi K2.672.6 |
| Agentic | Composer 261.7 | Margin→ 11.8 | Kimi K2.673.5 |
| Knowledge | Composer 2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.642.2 |
| Math | Composer 2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.667.1 |
| Multimodal | Composer 2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.679.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 61.7%B 66.7%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 5Terminal-Bench 2.0: Composer 2 scored 61.7%; Kimi K2.6 scored 66.7%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Composer 2 | Kimi K2.6 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Composer 2$0.5 input / $2.5 output | Kimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 output | Composer 2 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Composer 2Not available | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Composer 2Not available | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Composer 2200K | Kimi K2.6256K | Kimi K2.6 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticKimi K2.6 wins22 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 61.7% | 66.7% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 83.2% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 73.1% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 50% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 55.9% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 92.5% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 30.3% | Not comparable |
| Tau2-TelecomSource | — | 95.9% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 34.5% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1190 | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 28.5% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 56.82% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 18.0% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 4.6% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 809 | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | — | 19.6% | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 38.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 0.0% | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 31.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 20.6% | Not comparable |
CodingKimi K2.6 wins15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE MultilingualSource | 73.7% | 76.7% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 58% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 96.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 61.7% | 66.7% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 80.2% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 89.6% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 89.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 58.6% | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 52.2% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 37.89% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | — | 47.6% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 61.8% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | — | 43.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 53.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | — | 65.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | — | 90.5% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 90.5% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 34.7% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 44.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 91.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 35.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 6.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 32.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 39.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multimodal7 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 76.0% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Composer 2 or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 74 to 62. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 61.7% and 66.7%.
Which is better for coding, Composer 2 or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.6 versus 58. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Composer 2 or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.5 versus 61.7. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.