Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Kimi 2.6
85
Laguna M.1
46
Verified leaderboard positions: Kimi 2.6 #6 · Laguna M.1 unranked
Pick Kimi 2.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Laguna M.1 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+32.4 difference
Coding
+15.6 difference
Kimi 2.6
Laguna M.1
$0.95 / $4
$0 / $0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
256K
131K
Pick Kimi 2.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Laguna M.1 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Kimi 2.6 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 85 to 46. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Kimi 2.6's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 73.1 against 40.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 66.7% to 40.7%.
Kimi 2.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.95 input / $4.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Laguna M.1. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Kimi 2.6 gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 131K for Laguna M.1.
Kimi 2.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 85 to 46. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 66.7% and 40.7%.
Kimi 2.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72 versus 56.4. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Kimi 2.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.1 versus 40.7. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.