Model comparison
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Kimi K2.6
Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 26B A4B unranked; Kimi K2.6 #13
Evidence parity. Gemma 4 26B A4B and Kimi K2.6 share 19 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Gemma 4 26B A4B; 41 to Kimi K2.6.
Updated July 13, 2026- Shared results
- 19
- Gemma 4 26B A4B only
- 2
- Kimi K2.6 only
- 41
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Kimi K2.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 26B A4B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 19 shared benchmark results across 6 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 56. 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 73.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 17.2% to 34.7%. Gemma 4 26B A4B does hit back in knowledge, 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 $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemma 4 26B A4B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone.
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 | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Δ | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Gemma 4 26B A4B73.8 | Margin→ 6.0 | Kimi K2.679.8 |
| Knowledge | Gemma 4 26B A4B43.8 | Margin← 1.6 | Kimi K2.642.2 |
| Agentic | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.673.5 |
| Coding | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.672.6 |
| Math | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.667.1 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 17.2%B 34.7%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 17.5HLE: Gemma 4 26B A4B scored 17.2%; Kimi K2.6 scored 34.7%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 73.8%B 79.4%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 5.6MMMU-Pro: Gemma 4 26B A4B scored 73.8%; 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.
| Metric | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Kimi K2.6 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 4 26B A4B$0 input / $0 output | Kimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 output | Gemma 4 26B A4B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot available | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot available | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 4 26B A4B256K | Kimi K2.6256K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic22 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 11.0% | 30.3% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Tau2-TelecomSource | 43.6% | 95.9% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 12.9% | 34.5% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 758 | 1190 | 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 |
| 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 |
Coding13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding IndexSource | 39.3% | 61.8% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 13.6% | 43.9% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 40.0% | 53.5% | 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 |
| 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 Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | — | 65.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeGemma 4 26B A4B wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 82.6% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 17.2% | 34.7% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 8.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.7% | 44.2% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 79.2% | 91.1% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 18.3% | 35.9% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -48.1% | 6.4% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 18.2% | 32.8% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 80.9% | 39.3% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 90.5% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 90.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
MultimodalKimi K2.6 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 73.8% | 79.4% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 69.2% | 79.4% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource | — | 80.1% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 87.4% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 96.9% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1318 | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 72.4% | 76.0% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 74 to 56. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 17.2% and 34.7%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Kimi K2.6?
Gemma 4 26B A4B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 43.8 versus 42.2. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79.8 versus 73.8. Inside this category, AA-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.
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.