Model comparison
Grok Code Fast 1 vs Kimi K2.6
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Grok Code Fast 1 unranked; Kimi K2.6 #13
Evidence parity. Grok Code Fast 1 and Kimi K2.6 share 13 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Grok Code Fast 1; 47 to Kimi K2.6.
Updated July 13, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- Grok Code Fast 1 only
- 0
- Kimi K2.6 only
- 47
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Kimi K2.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok Code Fast 1 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 5 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 40. 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 coding, where it averages 72.6 against 70.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 70.8% to 80.2%.
Kimi K2.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.95 input / $4.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.50 output per 1M tokens for Grok Code Fast 1. That is roughly 2.7x on output cost alone. Kimi K2.6 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Grok Code Fast 1 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
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 | Grok Code Fast 1 | Δ | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Grok Code Fast 170.8 | Margin→ 1.8 | Kimi K2.672.6 |
| Agentic | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.673.5 |
| Knowledge | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.642.2 |
| Math | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.667.1 |
| Multimodal | Grok Code Fast 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 ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 70.8%B 80.2%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 9.4SWE-bench Verified: Grok Code Fast 1 scored 70.8%; 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.
| Metric | Grok Code Fast 1 | Kimi K2.6 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Grok Code Fast 1$0.2 input / $1.5 output | Kimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 output | Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Grok Code Fast 1172 tok/s | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Grok Code Fast 12.81 s | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Grok Code Fast 1256K | Kimi K2.6256K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic22 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok Code Fast 1 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tau2-TelecomSource | 75.7% | 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 |
CodingKimi K2.6 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok Code Fast 1 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 70.8% | 80.2% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 17.4% | 43.9% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 36.2% | 53.5% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| 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
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok Code Fast 1 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 21.6% | 44.2% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 72.7% | 91.1% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 7.5% | 35.9% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -36.0% | 6.4% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 23.8% | 32.8% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 78.5% | 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 |
Math5 benchmarks
Multimodal7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok Code Fast 1 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 79.4% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1318 | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok Code Fast 1 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 41.4% | 76.0% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Grok Code Fast 1 or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 74 to 40. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 70.8% and 80.2%.
Which is better for coding, Grok Code Fast 1 or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.6 versus 70.8. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard 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.