Model comparison
GPT-5.1 vs Kimi K2.6
Head-to-head evidence from 22 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: GPT-5.1 unranked; Kimi K2.6 #13
Evidence parity. GPT-5.1 and Kimi K2.6 share 22 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to GPT-5.1; 38 to Kimi K2.6.
Updated July 13, 2026- Shared results
- 22
- GPT-5.1 only
- 0
- Kimi K2.6 only
- 38
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Kimi K2.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.1 only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 22 shared benchmark results across 7 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 finishes one point ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 74 to 73. That is enough to call, but not enough to treat as a blowout. This matchup comes down to a few meaningful edges rather than one model dominating the board.
Kimi K2.6's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 67.1 against 26.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 31.034% to 38.966%.
GPT-5.1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.25 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.95 input / $4.00 output per 1M tokens for Kimi K2.6. That is roughly 2.5x on output cost alone. Kimi K2.6 gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for GPT-5.1.
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 | GPT-5.1 | Δ | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GPT-5.126.4 | Margin→ 40.7 | Kimi K2.667.1 |
| Agentic | GPT-5.1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.673.5 |
| Coding | GPT-5.1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.672.6 |
| Knowledge | GPT-5.1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.642.2 |
| Multimodal | GPT-5.1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.679.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 31.034%B 38.966%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 7.9FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GPT-5.1 scored 31.034%; Kimi K2.6 scored 38.966%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 12.500%B 14.580%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 2.1FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): GPT-5.1 scored 12.500%; Kimi K2.6 scored 14.580%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GPT-5.1 | Kimi K2.6 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-5.1$1.25 input / $10 output | Kimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 output | Kimi K2.6 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-5.1111 tok/s | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-5.157.47 s | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-5.1200K | Kimi K2.6256K | Kimi K2.6 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic22 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 21.0% | 30.3% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Tau2-TelecomSource | 81.9% | 95.9% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 41.24% | 56.82% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 24.4% | 34.5% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 988 | 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 |
| 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 | GPT-5.1 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 24.61% | 37.89% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 49.4% | 61.8% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 45.5% | 43.9% | GPT-5.1 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 43.3% | 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 |
| cursorBench31Source | — | 47.6% | Not comparable |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | — | 65.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 36.9% | 44.2% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 87.3% | 91.1% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 26.5% | 35.9% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 5.6% | 6.4% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 37.6% | 32.8% | GPT-5.1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 51.3% | 39.3% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 90.5% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 90.5% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 34.7% | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
MathKimi K2.6 wins5 benchmarks
Multimodal7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 75.5% | 79.4% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1230 | 1318 | 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 |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 72.9% | 76.0% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GPT-5.1 or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 74 to 73. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 31.034% and 38.966%.
Which is better for math, GPT-5.1 or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 67.1 versus 26.4. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) 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.