Coding
Directional only- Grok Code Fast 1
- 70.8
- Kimi K2.6
- 64.4
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 3 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Grok Code Fast 1 vs Kimi K2.6
Updated August 27, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Kimi K2.6 has the higher public score, 60.14 versus 37.87, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
1 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Grok Code Fast 1
Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Grok Code Fast 1
Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Grok Code Fast 1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Kimi K2.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Grok Code Fast 1
Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
1 Shared
31 Kimi K2.6 only
- Shared results
- 1
- Grok Code Fast 1 only
- 0
- Kimi K2.6 only
- 31
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Agentic
Not comparable- Grok Code Fast 1
- Not measured
- Kimi K2.6
- 73.5
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 3 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Grok Code Fast 1
- Not measured
- Kimi K2.6
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Grok Code Fast 1
- Not measured
- Kimi K2.6
- 42.2
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Grok Code Fast 1
- Not measured
- Kimi K2.6
- 67.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 4 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Grok Code Fast 1
- Not measured
- Kimi K2.6
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Grok Code Fast 1
- Not measured
- Kimi K2.6
- 79.8
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Grok Code Fast 1
- Not measured
- Kimi K2.6
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Grok Code Fast 1 | Kimi K2.6 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 70.8 | 64.4 | Directional only1 vs 3 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | Not measured | 73.5 | Not comparable0 vs 3 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | 42.2 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | 67.1 | Not comparable0 vs 4 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | 79.8 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Grok Code Fast 1
- $0.00095
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K2.6
- $0.00295
- Fits in one request
Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Grok Code Fast 1
- $0.0145
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K2.6
- $0.0595
- Fits in one request
Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Grok Code Fast 1
- $0.059
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Kimi K2.6
- $0.249
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower modeled cost
Grok Code Fast 1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Kimi K2.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGrok Code Fast 1Kimi K2.6
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Grok Code Fast 1
256K
Kimi K2.6
256K
API model ID
Grok Code Fast 1
Not sourced
Kimi K2.6
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Grok Code Fast 1
Not published
Kimi K2.6
Not published
Documented inputs
Grok Code Fast 1
Not sourced
Kimi K2.6
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Grok Code Fast 1
Not sourced
Kimi K2.6
Not sourced
Provider availability
Grok Code Fast 1
Not sourced
Kimi K2.6
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Grok Code Fast 1
Non-Reasoning
Kimi K2.6
Reasoning
Weight access
Grok Code Fast 1
Proprietary
Kimi K2.6
Open Weight
License
Grok Code Fast 1
Proprietary
Kimi K2.6
Open Weight
Release date
Grok Code Fast 1
2025-08-28
Kimi K2.6
2026-04-20
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Kimi K2.6 has the higher public score, 60.14 versus 37.87, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.0145 vs $0.0595. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.059 vs $0.249.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 256K.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Grok Code Fast 1
API / mo$1,275
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
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence32 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K2.666.7%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K2.683.2%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K2.673.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K2.650%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K2.655.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K2.662.3%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K2.692.5%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K2.680.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K2.656.82%SourceNot directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K2.618.0%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K2.64.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Grok Code Fast 170.8%SourceKimi K2.680.2%SourceKimi K2.6 leads this result
LiveCodeBench v6
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K2.689.6%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K2.658.6%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K2.676.7%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K2.652.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K2.666.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K2.637.89%SourceNot directly comparable
cursorBench31
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K2.647.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
Math
AIME26
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K2.696.4%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K2.692.7%SourceNot directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K2.686.0%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K2.638.966%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K2.614.580%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K2.679.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ Python
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K2.680.1%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K2.680.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K2.687.4%SourceNot directly comparable
V*
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K2.696.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Grok Code Fast 1 or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 has the higher public score, 60.14 versus 37.87, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
Which is better for coding, Grok Code Fast 1 or Kimi K2.6?
The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Grok Code Fast 1 or Kimi K2.6?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Grok Code Fast 1 or Kimi K2.6?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00095 on Grok Code Fast 1 and $0.00295 on Kimi K2.6; repository review costs $0.0145 and $0.0595; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.059 and $0.249. Grok Code Fast 1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Kimi K2.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Grok Code Fast 1 or Kimi K2.6?
Both models list the same context window, 256K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 27, 2026
Watch Grok Code Fast 1 vs Kimi K2.6
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.