Model comparison
Kimi K2.6 vs Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Head-to-head evidence from 22 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Kimi K2.6 #13; Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) unranked
Evidence parity. Kimi K2.6 and Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) share 22 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 38 results are unique to Kimi K2.6; 2 to Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning).
Updated July 13, 2026- Shared results
- 22
- Kimi K2.6 only
- 38
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) only
- 2
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Kimi K2.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 22 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 4 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 agentic, where it averages 73.5 against 55. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is BrowseComp, 83.2% to 60.6%. Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Kimi K2.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.95 input / $4.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.60 input / $3.00 output per 1M tokens for Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning). Kimi K2.6 gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 128K for Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning).
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 | Kimi K2.6 | Δ | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Kimi K2.642.2 | Margin→ 45.0 | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)87.2 |
| Agentic | Kimi K2.673.5 | Margin← 18.5 | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)55.0 |
| Coding | Kimi K2.672.6 | Margin→ 4.2 | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)76.8 |
| Multimodal | Kimi K2.679.8 | Margin← 1.3 | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)78.5 |
| Math | Kimi K2.667.1 | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 83.2%B 60.6%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 22.6BrowseComp: Kimi K2.6 scored 83.2%; Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) scored 60.6%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 66.7%B 50.8%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 15.9Terminal-Bench 2.0: Kimi K2.6 scored 66.7%; Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) scored 50.8%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 80.2%B 76.8%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 3.4SWE-bench Verified: Kimi K2.6 scored 80.2%; Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) scored 76.8%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 90.5%B 87.6%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 2.9GPQA: Kimi K2.6 scored 90.5%; Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) scored 87.6%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 79.4%B 78.5%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 0.9MMMU-Pro: Kimi K2.6 scored 79.4%; Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) scored 78.5%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Kimi K2.6 | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Kimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 output | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)$0.6 input / $3 output | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Kimi K2.6Not available | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Kimi K2.6Not available | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Kimi K2.6256K | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)128K | Kimi K2.6 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticKimi K2.6 wins22 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 66.7% | 50.8% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 83.2% | 60.6% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| 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 |
| Tau2-TelecomSource | 95.9% | 95.9% | Tie |
| GDPval-AASource | 34.5% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1190 | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 28.5% | 11.5% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 56.82% | 32.58% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| 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 K2.5 (Reasoning) wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.2% | 76.8% | 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% | 17.54% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| cursorBench31Source | 47.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 61.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 43.9% | 34.8% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 53.5% | 49.0% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | 65.9% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeKimi K2.5 (Reasoning) wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 90.5% | 87.6% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 90.5% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 34.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 44.2% | 38.1% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 91.1% | 87.9% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 35.9% | 29.4% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 6.4% | -8.1% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 32.8% | 34.3% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 39.3% | 64.6% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 33.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 87.1% | Not comparable |
Math6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| AIME 2025Source | — | 96.1% | Not comparable |
MultimodalKimi K2.6 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 79.4% | 78.5% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| 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% | 75.4% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1318 | 1291 | Kimi K2.6 leads |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 76.0% | 70.2% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, Kimi K2.6 or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?
Kimi K2.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 74 to 73. The biggest single separator in this matchup is BrowseComp, where the scores are 83.2% and 60.6%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Kimi K2.6 or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 87.2 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, Kimi K2.6 or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 76.8 versus 72.6. Inside this category, Vibe Code Bench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Kimi K2.6 or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.5 versus 55. Inside this category, Gert Labs is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Kimi K2.6 or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79.8 versus 78.5. 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
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.