Model comparison
Kimi K2.6 vs LFM2.5-8B-A1B
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Kimi K2.6 #11; LFM2.5-8B-A1B unranked
BenchAlign evidence: Kimi K2.6 estimated; LFM2.5-8B-A1B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Kimi K2.6 and LFM2.5-8B-A1B share 13 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 45 results are unique to Kimi K2.6; 5 to LFM2.5-8B-A1B.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- Kimi K2.6 only
- 45
- LFM2.5-8B-A1B only
- 5
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Kimi K2.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. LFM2.5-8B-A1B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 6 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, 71 to 37. 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 mathematics, where it averages 67.1 against 50. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is AIME26, 96.4% to 50.0%.
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 LFM2.5-8B-A1B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Kimi K2.6 gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 128K for LFM2.5-8B-A1B.
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 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Kimi K2.667.1 | Margin← 17.1 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B50.0 |
| Agentic | Kimi K2.673.5 | MarginNo overlap | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured |
| Coding | Kimi K2.664.4 | MarginNo overlap | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured |
| Knowledge | Kimi K2.642.2 | MarginNo overlap | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured |
| Multimodal | Kimi K2.679.8 | MarginNo overlap | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured |
| Inst. Following | Kimi K2.6Not measured | MarginNo overlap | LFM2.5-8B-A1B68.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
AIME26
MathA 96.4%B 50.0%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 46.4AIME26: Kimi K2.6 scored 96.4%; LFM2.5-8B-A1B scored 50.0%. 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 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Kimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 output | LFM2.5-8B-A1B$0 input / $0 output | LFM2.5-8B-A1B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Kimi K2.6Not available | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Kimi K2.6Not available | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Kimi K2.6256K | LFM2.5-8B-A1B128K | Kimi K2.6 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic22 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95.9% | 16.1% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 34.5% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1191 | — | 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 | 815 | — | 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 |
| BFCL v4Source | — | 49.7% | Not comparable |
Coding12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.2% | — | 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 |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 43.9% | 4.5% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 53.5% | 7.8% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | 65.9% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 90.5% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 90.5% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 34.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 44.2% | 8.3% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 91.1% | 51.3% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 35.9% | 6.9% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 6.4% | -33.3% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 32.8% | 9.4% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 39.3% | 47.0% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 33.3% | — | Not comparable |
MathKimi K2.6 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 96.4% | 50.0% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| 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 |
| MATH-500Source | — | 88.8% | Not comparable |
| AIME 2025Source | — | 42.5% | Not comparable |
Multimodal7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | 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 | 1310 | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Kimi K2.6 or LFM2.5-8B-A1B?
Kimi K2.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 71 to 37. The biggest single separator in this matchup is AIME26, where the scores are 96.4% and 50.0%.
Which is better for math, Kimi K2.6 or LFM2.5-8B-A1B?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 67.1 versus 50. Inside this category, AIME26 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.