Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Grok 4.20 vs Kimi K2.6

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 10 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.

68/100
Margin
6.0pts
winning →
Kimi K2.6
Moonshot AI
74/100
0 category wins3 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Grok 4.20 unranked; Kimi K2.6 #13

Evidence parity. Grok 4.20 and Kimi K2.6 share 10 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 9 results are unique to Grok 4.20; 50 to Kimi K2.6.

Updated July 13, 2026
Shared results
10
Grok 4.20 only
9
Kimi K2.6 only
50
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Kimi K2.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok 4.20 only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 2M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 10 shared benchmark results across 4 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 provisional aggregate, 74 to 68. 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 agentic, where it averages 73.5 against 47.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 47.1% to 66.7%.

Grok 4.20 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $6.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.95 input / $4.00 output per 1M tokens for Kimi K2.6. Grok 4.20 gives you the larger context window at 2M, 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 scores and score margins for Grok 4.20 and Kimi K2.6
CategoryGrok 4.20ΔKimi K2.6
AgenticGrok 4.2047.1Margin→ 26.4Kimi K2.673.5
CodingGrok 4.2061.1Margin→ 11.5Kimi K2.672.6
MultimodalGrok 4.2070.1Margin→ 9.7Kimi K2.679.8
ReasoningGrok 4.2053.3MarginNo overlapKimi K2.6Not measured
KnowledgeGrok 4.20Not measuredMarginNo overlapKimi K2.642.2
MathGrok 4.20Not measuredMarginNo overlapKimi K2.667.1

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Grok 4.20B · Kimi K2.6

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 47.1%B 66.7%
    Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 19.6
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Grok 4.20 scored 47.1%; Kimi K2.6 scored 66.7%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.

  2. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 60.9%B 80.4%
    Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 19.5
    CharXiv: Grok 4.20 scored 60.9%; Kimi K2.6 scored 80.4%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 51.8%B 58.6%
    Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 6.8
    SWE-bench Pro: Grok 4.20 scored 51.8%; Kimi K2.6 scored 58.6%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.

  4. MMMU-Pro

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 75.2%B 79.4%
    Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 4.2
    MMMU-Pro: Grok 4.20 scored 75.2%; Kimi K2.6 scored 79.4%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.

  5. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 76.7%B 80.2%
    Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 3.5
    SWE-bench Verified: Grok 4.20 scored 76.7%; Kimi K2.6 scored 80.2%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricGrok 4.20Kimi K2.6Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGrok 4.20$2 input / $6 outputKimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 outputKimi K2.6 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondGrok 4.20233 tok/sKimi K2.6Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGrok 4.2010.33 sKimi K2.6Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGrok 4.202MKimi K2.6256KGrok 4.20 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticKimi K2.6 wins
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Kimi K2.6Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 47.1%66.7%Kimi K2.6 leads
DeepSearchQASource 62.8%92.5%Kimi K2.6 leads
Gert LabsSource 38.36%56.82%Kimi K2.6 leads
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
WideResearchSource —80.8%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —30.3%Not comparable
Tau2-TelecomSource —95.9%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —34.5%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1190Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —28.5%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —18.0%Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —4.6%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —809Not 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 wins
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Kimi K2.6Result
LiveCodeBench ProSource 74.2%—Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 76.7%80.2%Kimi K2.6 leads
SWE-bench ProSource 51.8%58.6%Kimi K2.6 leads
Vibe Code BenchSource 4.06%37.89%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
Terminal-Bench HardSource —43.9%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource —53.5%Not comparable
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source —65.9%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Kimi K2.6Result
ARC-AGI-2Source 53.3%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource —69.7%Not comparable
CritPtSource —8.0%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Kimi K2.6Result
GPQA-DSource 88.5%90.5%Kimi K2.6 leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 31.6%—Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource 20.3%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source 50.2%—Not comparable
GPQASource —90.5%Not comparable
HLESource —34.7%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource —44.2%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —91.1%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —35.9%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —6.4%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —32.8%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —39.3%Not comparable
AA Openness IndexSource —33.3%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Kimi K2.6Result
AIME26Source —96.4%Not comparable
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
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Kimi K2.6Result
MMMU-ProSource 75.2%79.4%Kimi K2.6 leads
CharXivSource 60.9%80.4%Kimi K2.6 leads
ERQASource 54.1%—Not comparable
SimpleVQASource 57.4%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source 65.8%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1055—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12711318Kimi K2.6 leads
MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource —80.1%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —87.4%Not comparable
V*Source —96.9%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —79.4%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Kimi K2.6Result
AA-IFBenchSource —76.0%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Grok 4.20 or Kimi K2.6?

Kimi K2.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 74 to 68. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 47.1% and 66.7%.

Which is better for coding, Grok 4.20 or Kimi K2.6?

Kimi K2.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.6 versus 61.1. Inside this category, Vibe Code Bench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Grok 4.20 or Kimi K2.6?

Kimi K2.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.5 versus 47.1. Inside this category, DeepSearchQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Grok 4.20 or Kimi K2.6?

Kimi K2.6 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79.8 versus 70.1. 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.

Grok 4.20
API / mo$6,000
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

xAI Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 13, 2026

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.