Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) vs Kimi K2.6

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 31 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

N/A
No comparison
Kimi K2.6
Moonshot AI
56.79/100
4 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) unranked (Not scored); Kimi K2.6 #74 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) and Kimi K2.6 share 31 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 17 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max); 20 to Kimi K2.6.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
31
DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) only
17
Kimi K2.6 only
20
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) makes more sense if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill; Kimi K2.6 is the better fit if its strengths line up with your actual workload.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 31 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

DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) and Kimi K2.6 finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.

Kimi K2.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.95 input / $4.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.43 input / $0.87 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max). That is roughly 4.6x on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) 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 scores and score margins for DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) and Kimi K2.6
CategoryDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)ΔKimi K2.6
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)95.2Margin← 28.1Kimi K2.667.1
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)60.1Margin← 17.9Kimi K2.642.2
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)70.9Margin← 6.5Kimi K2.664.4
AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)74.5Margin← 1.0Kimi K2.673.5
MultimodalDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not measuredMarginNo overlapKimi K2.679.8

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)B · Kimi K2.6

  1. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 55.4%B 58.6%
    Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 3.2
    SWE-bench Pro: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 55.4%; Kimi K2.6 scored 58.6%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.

  2. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 37.7%B 34.7%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Δ 3
    HLE: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 37.7%; Kimi K2.6 scored 34.7%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins this benchmark.

  3. HMMT Feb 2026

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 95.2%B 92.7%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Δ 2.5
    HMMT Feb 2026: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 95.2%; Kimi K2.6 scored 92.7%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins this benchmark.

  4. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 67.9%B 66.7%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Δ 1.2
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 67.9%; Kimi K2.6 scored 66.7%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins this benchmark.

  5. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 90.1%B 90.5%
    Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 0.4
    GPQA: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 90.1%; 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.

MetricDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Kimi K2.6Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)$0.435 input / $0.87 outputKimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 outputDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not availableKimi K2.6Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not availableKimi K2.6Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)1MKimi K2.6256KDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Kimi K2.6Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 67.9%66.7%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
BrowseCompSource 83.4%83.2%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
HLE w/ toolsSource 48.2%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 73.6%55.9%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
GDPval-AASource 13071189DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
ToolathlonSource 51.8%50%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 36.4%30.3%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
APEX-Agents-AASource 24.3%28.5%Kimi K2.6 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 96.2%95.9%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
GDPval-AASource 40.4%34.5%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
AA BriefcaseSource 932—Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 40.4%—Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 84.4%—Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource 38.3%—Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 25.8%—Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource 46.2%43.9%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
aaTerminalBench21Source 64%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —73.1%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —62.3%Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource —92.5%Not comparable
WideResearchSource —80.8%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —56.82%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —18.0%Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —4.6%Not comparable
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Kimi K2.6Result
CodeforcesSource 3206.0—Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.6%80.2%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
SWE-bench ProSource 55.4%58.6%Kimi K2.6 leads
SWE MultilingualSource 76.2%76.7%Kimi K2.6 leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 67.9%66.7%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
Vibe Code BenchSource 49.93%37.89%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
AA Coding IndexSource 59.4%61.8%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 50.0%53.5%Kimi K2.6 leads
LiveCodeBench v6Source —89.6%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —52.2%Not comparable
cursorBench31Source —47.6%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Kimi K2.6Result
MRCR 1MSource 83.5%—Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource 62.0%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 66.3%69.7%Kimi K2.6 leads
CritPtSource 12.9%8.0%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Kimi K2.6Result
MMLU-ProSource 87.5%—Not comparable
SimpleQASource 57.9%—Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource 84.4%—Not comparable
GPQASource 90.1%90.5%Kimi K2.6 leads
GPQA-DSource 90.1%90.5%Kimi K2.6 leads
HLESource 37.7%34.7%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 44.3%44.2%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 88.8%91.1%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-HLESource 35.9%35.9%Tie
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -10.0%6.4%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 43.3%32.8%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 94.0%39.3%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA Openness IndexSource 50.0%—Not comparable
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Kimi K2.6Result
HMMT Feb 2026Source 95.2%92.7%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
IMOAnswerBenchSource 89.8%—Not comparable
ApexSource 38.3%—Not comparable
Apex ShortlistSource 90.2%—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
Multimodal
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Kimi K2.6Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12641306Kimi 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. Following
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Kimi K2.6Result
AA-IFBenchSource 76.5%76.0%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) or Kimi K2.6?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) and Kimi K2.6 are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) or Kimi K2.6?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60.1 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 Pro (Max) or Kimi K2.6?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.9 versus 64.4. Inside this category, Vibe Code Bench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) or Kimi K2.6?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 95.2 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 Pro (Max) or Kimi K2.6?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 74.5 versus 73.5. 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.

DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)
API / mo$979
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Kimi K2.6
API / mo$3,713
Self-host / mo$18,221
Break-even326M/day
Model the full break-even

Related Comparisons

Explore More

DeepSeek Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

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.