Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Gemma 4 12B vs Kimi K2.6

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 17 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

47.29/100
Margin
9.5pts
winning →
Kimi K2.6
Moonshot AI
56.79/100
2 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 12B #137 (Estimated); Kimi K2.6 #74 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Gemma 4 12B and Kimi K2.6 share 17 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 6 results are unique to Gemma 4 12B; 34 to Kimi K2.6.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
17
Gemma 4 12B only
6
Kimi K2.6 only
34
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Kimi K2.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 12B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 17 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 3 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 BenchAlign aggregate, 56.79 to 47.29. 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 multimodal & grounded, where it averages 79.8 against 69.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is AIME26, 77.5% to 96.4%. Gemma 4 12B does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

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 Gemma 4 12B and Kimi K2.6
CategoryGemma 4 12BΔKimi K2.6
KnowledgeGemma 4 12B77.5Margin← 35.3Kimi K2.642.2
MultimodalGemma 4 12B69.1Margin→ 10.7Kimi K2.679.8
MathGemma 4 12B77.5Margin← 10.4Kimi K2.667.1
AgenticGemma 4 12BNot measuredMarginNo overlapKimi K2.673.5
CodingGemma 4 12BNot measuredMarginNo overlapKimi K2.664.4
ReasoningGemma 4 12B43.4MarginNo overlapKimi K2.6Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Gemma 4 12BB · Kimi K2.6

  1. AIME26

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 77.5%B 96.4%
    Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 18.9
    AIME26: Gemma 4 12B scored 77.5%; Kimi K2.6 scored 96.4%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.

  2. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 78.8%B 90.5%
    Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 11.7
    GPQA: Gemma 4 12B scored 78.8%; Kimi K2.6 scored 90.5%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.

  3. MMMU-Pro

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 69.1%B 79.4%
    Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 10.3
    MMMU-Pro: Gemma 4 12B scored 69.1%; Kimi K2.6 scored 79.4%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricGemma 4 12BKimi K2.6Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGemma 4 12BNot availableKimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 outputA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGemma 4 12BNot availableKimi K2.6Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGemma 4 12BNot availableKimi K2.6Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGemma 4 12B256KKimi K2.6256KListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGemma 4 12BKimi K2.6Result
τ²-bench resultsSource 36.3%95.9%Kimi K2.6 leads
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
GDPval-AASource —34.5%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1189Not 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
Coding
BenchmarkGemma 4 12BKimi K2.6Result
AA-SciCodeSource 38.2%53.5%Kimi K2.6 leads
SWE-bench VerifiedSource —80.2%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
Reasoning
BenchmarkGemma 4 12BKimi K2.6Result
BBHSource 53%—Not comparable
MRCRv2Source 43.4%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 55.3%69.7%Kimi K2.6 leads
CritPtSource 0.0%8.0%Kimi K2.6 leads
KnowledgeGemma 4 12B wins
BenchmarkGemma 4 12BKimi K2.6Result
GPQASource 78.8%90.5%Kimi K2.6 leads
GPQA-DSource 78.8%90.5%Kimi K2.6 leads
MMLU-ProSource 77.2%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 5.2%—Not comparable
MMMLUSource 83.4%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 22.0%44.2%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 75.3%91.1%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-HLESource 14.8%35.9%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -51.9%6.4%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 16.0%32.8%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 80.8%39.3%Kimi K2.6 leads
HLESource —34.7%Not comparable
MathGemma 4 12B wins
BenchmarkGemma 4 12BKimi K2.6Result
AIME26Source 77.5%96.4%Kimi K2.6 leads
HMMT Feb 2026Source —92.7%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
MultimodalKimi K2.6 wins
BenchmarkGemma 4 12BKimi K2.6Result
MMMU-ProSource 69.1%79.4%Kimi K2.6 leads
MathVisionSource 79.7%87.4%Kimi K2.6 leads
MedXpertQA (MM)Source 48.7%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 69.7%79.4%Kimi K2.6 leads
MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource —80.1%Not comparable
CharXivSource —80.4%Not comparable
V*Source —96.9%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource —1306Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGemma 4 12BKimi K2.6Result
AA-IFBenchSource 73.5%76.0%Kimi K2.6 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Gemma 4 12B or Kimi K2.6?

Kimi K2.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 56.79 to 47.29. The biggest single separator in this matchup is AIME26, where the scores are 77.5% and 96.4%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemma 4 12B or Kimi K2.6?

Gemma 4 12B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 42.2. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Gemma 4 12B or Kimi K2.6?

Gemma 4 12B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 67.1. Inside this category, AIME26 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemma 4 12B or Kimi K2.6?

Kimi K2.6 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79.8 versus 69.1. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro 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.

Gemma 4 12B
API / mo$0
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

Google 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.