Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) vs Kimi K2.6
Head-to-head evidence from 28 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) #92 (Estimated); Kimi K2.6 #74 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) and Kimi K2.6 share 28 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 10 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Flash (High); 23 to Kimi K2.6.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 28
- DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) only
- 10
- Kimi K2.6 only
- 23
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Kimi K2.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 28 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 4 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 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 56.79 versus 53.95. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Kimi K2.6's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 73.5 against 55.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is BrowseComp, 53.5% to 83.2%. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Kimi K2.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.95 input / $4.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.14 input / $0.28 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Flash (High). That is roughly 14.3x on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Kimi K2.6.
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 | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) | Δ | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)91.9 | Margin← 24.8 | Kimi K2.667.1 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)55.3 | Margin→ 18.2 | Kimi K2.673.5 |
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)52.1 | Margin← 9.9 | Kimi K2.642.2 |
| Coding | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)68.5 | Margin← 4.1 | Kimi K2.664.4 |
| Multimodal | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.679.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 53.5%B 83.2%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 29.7BrowseComp: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) scored 53.5%; Kimi K2.6 scored 83.2%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 56.6%B 66.7%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 10.1Terminal-Bench 2.0: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) scored 56.6%; Kimi K2.6 scored 66.7%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 52.3%B 58.6%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 6.3SWE-bench Pro: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) scored 52.3%; Kimi K2.6 scored 58.6%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 29.4%B 34.7%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 5.3HLE: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) scored 29.4%; Kimi K2.6 scored 34.7%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 87.4%B 90.5%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 3.1GPQA: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) scored 87.4%; Kimi K2.6 scored 90.5%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) | Kimi K2.6 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)$0.14 input / $0.28 output | Kimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 output | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Not available | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Not available | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)1M | Kimi K2.6256K | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticKimi K2.6 wins18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 56.6% | 66.7% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 53.5% | 83.2% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 40.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 67.4% | 55.9% | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads |
| ToolathlonSource | 43.5% | 50% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95.6% | 95.9% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 28.2% | 30.3% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 32.4% | 34.5% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1147 | 1189 | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 73.1% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 92.5% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 80.8% | 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 |
| terminalBenchHardSource | — | 43.9% | Not comparable |
CodingDeepSeek V4 Flash (High) wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| CodeforcesSource | 2816.0 | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 78.6% | 80.2% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 52.3% | 58.6% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 70.2% | 76.7% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 56.6% | 66.7% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 42.0% | 53.5% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 52.0% | 61.8% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 89.6% | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 52.2% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 37.89% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | — | 47.6% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Flash (High) wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 86.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | 28.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | 73.2% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 87.4% | 90.5% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 87.4% | 90.5% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| HLESource | 29.4% | 34.7% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 37.5% | 44.2% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 86.7% | 91.1% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 27.8% | 35.9% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -22.3% | 6.4% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 35.5% | 32.8% | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 89.7% | 39.3% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
MathDeepSeek V4 Flash (High) wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 91.9% | 92.7% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| IMOAnswerBenchSource | 85.1% | — | Not comparable |
| ApexSource | 19.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Apex ShortlistSource | 72.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | — | 96.4% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 86.0% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | — | 38.966% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | — | 14.580% | Not comparable |
Multimodal7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1238 | 1306 | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| 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 |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 73.5% | 76.0% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 56.79 to 53.95. The biggest single separator in this matchup is BrowseComp, where the scores are 53.5% and 83.2%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) or Kimi K2.6?
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 52.1 versus 42.2. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) or Kimi K2.6?
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 68.5 versus 64.4. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) or Kimi K2.6?
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 91.9 versus 67.1. Inside this category, HMMT Feb 2026 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.5 versus 55.3. Inside this category, GDPval-AA 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
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.