Model comparison
GPT-5.2 vs Kimi K2.6
Head-to-head evidence from 26 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: GPT-5.2 #29; Kimi K2.6 #13
Evidence parity. GPT-5.2 and Kimi K2.6 share 26 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to GPT-5.2; 34 to Kimi K2.6.
Updated July 13, 2026- Shared results
- 26
- GPT-5.2 only
- 3
- Kimi K2.6 only
- 34
- Comparable categories
- 5 / 8
Pick GPT-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Kimi K2.6 only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 26 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 5 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
GPT-5.2 finishes one point ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 75 to 74. 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.
GPT-5.2's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 92.4 against 42.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is OSWorld-Verified, 47.3% to 73.1%. Kimi K2.6 does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
GPT-5.2 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.75 input / $14.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.95 input / $4.00 output per 1M tokens for Kimi K2.6. That is roughly 3.5x on output cost alone. GPT-5.2 gives you the larger context window at 400K, 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 | GPT-5.2 | Δ | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | GPT-5.292.4 | Margin← 50.2 | Kimi K2.642.2 |
| Math | GPT-5.235.2 | Margin→ 31.9 | Kimi K2.667.1 |
| Agentic | GPT-5.255.7 | Margin→ 17.8 | Kimi K2.673.5 |
| Coding | GPT-5.264.7 | Margin→ 7.9 | Kimi K2.672.6 |
| Multimodal | GPT-5.280.4 | Margin← 0.6 | Kimi K2.679.8 |
| Reasoning | GPT-5.252.9 | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.6Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
OSWorld-Verified
AgenticA 47.3%B 73.1%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 25.8OSWorld-Verified: GPT-5.2 scored 47.3%; Kimi K2.6 scored 73.1%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 65.8%B 83.2%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 17.4BrowseComp: GPT-5.2 scored 65.8%; Kimi K2.6 scored 83.2%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 18.800%B 14.580%Winner: GPT-5.2Δ 4.2FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): GPT-5.2 scored 18.800%; Kimi K2.6 scored 14.580%. GPT-5.2 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 55.6%B 58.6%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 3SWE-bench Pro: GPT-5.2 scored 55.6%; Kimi K2.6 scored 58.6%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 92.4%B 90.5%Winner: GPT-5.2Δ 1.9GPQA: GPT-5.2 scored 92.4%; Kimi K2.6 scored 90.5%. GPT-5.2 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GPT-5.2 | Kimi K2.6 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-5.2$1.75 input / $14 output | Kimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 output | Kimi K2.6 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-5.273 tok/s | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-5.2130.34 s | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-5.2400K | Kimi K2.6256K | GPT-5.2 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticKimi K2.6 wins23 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| BrowseCompSource | 65.8% | 83.2% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 47.3% | 73.1% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Tau2-TelecomSource | 84.8% | 95.9% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 46.54% | 56.82% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| JobBenchSource | 34.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 66.7% | 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 |
| 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 |
CodingKimi K2.6 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80% | 80.2% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 55.6% | 58.6% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 53.50% | 37.89% | GPT-5.2 leads |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 47.0% | 43.9% | GPT-5.2 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 52.1% | 53.5% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 89.6% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 89.6% | 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 Coding IndexSource | — | 61.8% | Not comparable |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | — | 65.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
KnowledgeGPT-5.2 wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 92.4% | 90.5% | GPT-5.2 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 42.2% | 44.2% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 90.3% | 91.1% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 35.4% | 35.9% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -1.0% | 6.4% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 43.8% | 32.8% | GPT-5.2 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 79.7% | 39.3% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 90.5% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 34.7% | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
MathKimi K2.6 wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA AIME 2025Source | 99.0% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 40.700% | 38.966% | GPT-5.2 leads |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 18.800% | 14.580% | GPT-5.2 leads |
| AIME26Source | — | 96.4% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 86.0% | Not comparable |
MultimodalGPT-5.2 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 79.5% | 79.4% | GPT-5.2 leads |
| MathVisionSource | 83.0% | 87.4% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| CharXivSource | 82.1% | 80.4% | GPT-5.2 leads |
| V*Source | 75.9% | 96.9% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1237 | 1318 | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource | — | 80.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 79.4% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 75.4% | 76.0% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (6)
Which is better, GPT-5.2 or Kimi K2.6?
GPT-5.2 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 75 to 74. The biggest single separator in this matchup is OSWorld-Verified, where the scores are 47.3% and 73.1%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-5.2 or Kimi K2.6?
GPT-5.2 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 92.4 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, GPT-5.2 or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.6 versus 64.7. Inside this category, Vibe Code Bench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, GPT-5.2 or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 67.1 versus 35.2. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.2 or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.5 versus 55.7. Inside this category, OSWorld-Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, GPT-5.2 or Kimi K2.6?
GPT-5.2 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 80.4 versus 79.8. Inside this category, Design Arena Website 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.