Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Kimi K2.6
84
Laguna M.1
51
Verified leaderboard positions: Kimi K2.6 #11 · Laguna M.1 unranked
Pick Kimi K2.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Laguna M.1 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+27.3 difference
Coding
+13.4 difference
Kimi K2.6
Laguna M.1
$0.95 / $4
$0 / $0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
256K
131K
Pick Kimi K2.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Laguna M.1 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Kimi K2.6 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 84 to 51. 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 73.1 against 45.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 66.7% to 45.8%.
Kimi K2.6 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 K2.6 gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 131K for Laguna M.1.
Kimi K2.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 84 to 51. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 66.7% and 45.8%.
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72 versus 58.6. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.1 versus 45.8. 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.