Skip to main content
Radar

Keep up with the models you depend on. Follow price changes, retirements, and API updates.Follow the models you depend on.

Follow model changes
BenchLM
Moonshot AI logo
Model A
Kimi K2.6

Moonshot AI

65.39/100

Supported · Public rank #38

90% interval 57.0–73.8

Kimi K2.6 vs LLaDA2.2-mini

Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

InclusionAI logo
Model B
LLaDA2.2-mini

InclusionAI

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Decision reading

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.

4 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Kimi K2.6

    Kimi K2.6 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    LLaDA2.2-mini is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    LLaDA2.2-mini is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. LLaDA2.2-mini does not fit this workload in one request. Kimi K2.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. LLaDA2.2-mini has no comparable published API token rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
4
Kimi K2.6 only
33
LLaDA2.2-mini only
5
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Not comparable
Kimi K2.6
46.7
Supported · #74/152
LLaDA2.2-mini
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 12 vs 4 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Kimi K2.6
50.8
Supported · #52/151
LLaDA2.2-mini
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 10 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Kimi K2.6
Not ranked
LLaDA2.2-mini
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Kimi K2.6
61.5
Supported · #32/183
LLaDA2.2-mini
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 5 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Kimi K2.6
71.3
#1/7
LLaDA2.2-mini
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 4 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Kimi K2.6
Not ranked
LLaDA2.2-mini
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Kimi K2.6
64.0
#26/48
LLaDA2.2-mini
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Kimi K2.6
Not ranked
LLaDA2.2-mini
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Kimi K2.6
$0.00295
Fits in one request
LLaDA2.2-mini
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

LLaDA2.2-mini has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Kimi K2.6
$0.0595
Fits in one request
LLaDA2.2-mini
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

LLaDA2.2-mini has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Kimi K2.6
$0.249
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
LLaDA2.2-mini
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Does not fit in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

LLaDA2.2-mini does not fit this workload in one request. Kimi K2.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. LLaDA2.2-mini has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Kimi K2.6

Not published

LLaDA2.2-mini

No comparable hosted API rate

InclusionAI LLaDA2.2-mini model card

Documented inputs

Kimi K2.6

Not sourced

LLaDA2.2-mini

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Kimi K2.6

Not sourced

LLaDA2.2-mini

Not sourced

Provider availability

Kimi K2.6

Not sourced

LLaDA2.2-mini

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Kimi K2.6

Reasoning

LLaDA2.2-mini

Reasoning

Weight access

Kimi K2.6

Open Weight

LLaDA2.2-mini

Open Weight

License

Kimi K2.6

Open Weight

LLaDA2.2-mini

Open Weight

Release date

Kimi K2.6

2026-04-20

LLaDA2.2-mini

2026-07-16

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Kimi K2.6 has the larger documented window (256K).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

Kimi K2.6
API / mo$3,713
Self-host / mo$18,221
Break-even326M/day
LLaDA2.2-mini
API / mo$0
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Model the full break-even

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence42 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Kimi K2.666.7%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Kimi K2.683.2%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Kimi K2.673.1%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    Kimi K2.650%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Kimi K2.655.9%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Kimi K2.662.3%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini57.2%
    Source

    Kimi K2.6 leads this result

  • DeepSearchQA

    Kimi K2.692.5%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    Kimi K2.680.8%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Kimi K2.656.82%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    Kimi K2.618.0%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Kimi K2.64.6%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Kimi K2.653.6%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

  • BFCL v4

    Kimi K2.6—
    LLaDA2.2-mini47.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ²-bench results

    Kimi K2.6—
    LLaDA2.2-mini57.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • PinchBench

    Kimi K2.6—
    LLaDA2.2-mini62.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Kimi K2.680.2%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v6

    Kimi K2.689.6%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini28.1%
    Source

    Kimi K2.6 leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Kimi K2.658.6%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Kimi K2.676.7%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

  • SciCode

    Kimi K2.652.2%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Kimi K2.666.7%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Kimi K2.637.89%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench31

    Kimi K2.647.6%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Kimi K2.686.8%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Kimi K2.676.2%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • LongBench v2

    Kimi K2.6—
    LLaDA2.2-mini35.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Kimi K2.690.5%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Kimi K2.690.5%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini44.4%
    Source

    Kimi K2.6 leads this result

  • HLE

    Kimi K2.634.7%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Kimi K2.689.1%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Kimi K2.687.6%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME26

    Kimi K2.696.4%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini35.0%
    Source

    Kimi K2.6 leads this result

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Kimi K2.692.7%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMAnswerBench

    Kimi K2.686.0%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Kimi K2.638.966%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Kimi K2.614.580%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    Kimi K2.679.4%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro w/ Python

    Kimi K2.680.1%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Kimi K2.680.4%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision

    Kimi K2.687.4%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

  • V*

    Kimi K2.696.9%
    Source
    LLaDA2.2-mini—

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    Kimi K2.6—
    LLaDA2.2-mini24.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Kimi K2.6 or LLaDA2.2-mini?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Kimi K2.6 or LLaDA2.2-mini?

LLaDA2.2-mini is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Kimi K2.6 or LLaDA2.2-mini?

LLaDA2.2-mini is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Kimi K2.6 or LLaDA2.2-mini?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Kimi K2.6 or LLaDA2.2-mini?

Kimi K2.6 has the larger documented context window: 256K, compared with 128K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 10, 2026

Watch Kimi K2.6 vs LLaDA2.2-mini

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.