Model comparison
Gemma 4 E2B vs Kimi K2.6
Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 E2B unranked; Kimi K2.6 #13
Evidence parity. Gemma 4 E2B and Kimi K2.6 share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Gemma 4 E2B; 46 to Kimi K2.6.
Updated July 13, 2026- Shared results
- 14
- Gemma 4 E2B only
- 1
- Kimi K2.6 only
- 46
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Kimi K2.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 E2B 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 14 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 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 34. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
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 E2B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Kimi K2.6 gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 128K for Gemma 4 E2B.
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 E2B | Δ | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Gemma 4 E2B56.9 | Margin← 14.7 | Kimi K2.642.2 |
| Agentic | Gemma 4 E2BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.673.5 |
| Coding | Gemma 4 E2BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.672.6 |
| Math | Gemma 4 E2BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.667.1 |
| Multimodal | Gemma 4 E2BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.679.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 43.4%B 90.5%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 47.1GPQA: Gemma 4 E2B scored 43.4%; 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 | Gemma 4 E2B | Kimi K2.6 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 4 E2B$0 input / $0 output | Kimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 output | Gemma 4 E2B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 4 E2BNot available | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 4 E2BNot available | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 4 E2B128K | Kimi K2.6256K | Kimi K2.6 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic22 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 E2B | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tau2-TelecomSource | 20.8% | 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 | — | 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 | — | 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 E2B | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 3.0% | 43.9% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 20.9% | 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 Coding IndexSource | — | 61.8% | Not comparable |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | — | 65.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeGemma 4 E2B wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 E2B | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 43.4% | 90.5% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 60% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 9.3% | 44.2% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 43.3% | 91.1% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 4.8% | 35.9% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -24.0% | 6.4% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 6.7% | 32.8% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 32.9% | 39.3% | Gemma 4 E2B leads |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 90.5% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 34.7% | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multimodal7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 E2B | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 44.6% | 79.4% | 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 |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1318 | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 E2B | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 38.0% | 76.0% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemma 4 E2B or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 74 to 34. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 43.4% and 90.5%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemma 4 E2B or Kimi K2.6?
Gemma 4 E2B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 56.9 versus 42.2. Inside this category, AA-GPQA Diamond 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.