Model comparison
DeepSeek Coder 2.0 vs Kimi K2.6
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: DeepSeek Coder 2.0 unranked; Kimi K2.6 #11
Evidence parity. DeepSeek Coder 2.0 and Kimi K2.6 share 0 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to DeepSeek Coder 2.0; 58 to Kimi K2.6.
Updated July 14, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- DeepSeek Coder 2.0 only
- 0
- Kimi K2.6 only
- 58
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for DeepSeek Coder 2.0 and Kimi K2.6 is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM does not have sourced benchmark coverage for DeepSeek Coder 2.0 yet. This comparison is currently limited to metadata such as context window, reasoning mode, and pricing where available.
Kimi K2.6 has the larger context window at 256K, compared with 128K for DeepSeek Coder 2.0.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek Coder 2.0 | Kimi K2.6 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek Coder 2.0Not available | Kimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek Coder 2.0Not available | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek Coder 2.0Not available | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek Coder 2.0128K | Kimi K2.6256K | Kimi K2.6 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic20 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 2.0 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 66.7% | Not comparable |
| 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 | — | 811 | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 38.5% | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 31.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 20.6% | Not comparable |
Coding13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 2.0 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 76.7% | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 52.2% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 66.7% | 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 | DeepSeek Coder 2.0 | 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
| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 2.0 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 79.4% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource | — | 80.1% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 87.4% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 96.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 79.4% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1310 | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 2.0 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 76.0% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare DeepSeek Coder 2.0 and Kimi K2.6 on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for DeepSeek Coder 2.0 and Kimi K2.6 today?
DeepSeek Coder 2.0: Pricing unavailable Kimi K2.6: $0.95 input / $4.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
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.