Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Kimi K2.6 vs Llama 4 Scout

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.

Kimi K2.6
Moonshot AI
74/100
Margin
50.0pts
← winning
24/100
0 category wins0 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Kimi K2.6 #13; Llama 4 Scout unranked

Evidence parity. Kimi K2.6 and Llama 4 Scout share 19 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 41 results are unique to Kimi K2.6; 0 to Llama 4 Scout.

Updated July 13, 2026
Shared results
19
Kimi K2.6 only
41
Llama 4 Scout only
0
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for Kimi K2.6 and Llama 4 Scout is coming soon on BenchLM.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 19 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.

Kimi K2.6 is priced at $0.95 input / $4.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Llama 4 Scout. Llama 4 Scout has the larger context window at 10M, compared with 256K for Kimi K2.6.

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 scores and score margins for Kimi K2.6 and Llama 4 Scout
CategoryKimi K2.6ΔLlama 4 Scout
AgenticKimi K2.673.5MarginNo overlapLlama 4 ScoutNot measured
CodingKimi K2.672.6MarginNo overlapLlama 4 ScoutNot measured
KnowledgeKimi K2.642.2MarginNo overlapLlama 4 ScoutNot measured
MathKimi K2.667.1MarginNo overlapLlama 4 ScoutNot measured
MultimodalKimi K2.679.8MarginNo overlapLlama 4 ScoutNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Kimi K2.6B · Llama 4 Scout

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 38.966%B 0.000%
    Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 39
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Kimi K2.6 scored 38.966%; Llama 4 Scout scored 0.000%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricKimi K2.6Llama 4 ScoutComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensKimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 outputLlama 4 Scout$0 input / $0 outputLlama 4 Scout has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondKimi K2.6Not availableLlama 4 Scout128 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenKimi K2.6Not availableLlama 4 Scout0.70 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensKimi K2.6256KLlama 4 Scout10MLlama 4 Scout lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Llama 4 ScoutResult
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%1.1%Kimi K2.6 leads
Tau2-TelecomSource 95.9%15.5%Kimi K2.6 leads
GDPval-AASource 34.5%0.0%Kimi K2.6 leads
GDPval-AASource 119079Kimi K2.6 leads
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 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
Coding
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Llama 4 ScoutResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.2%—Not comparable
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%—Not comparable
cursorBench31Source 47.6%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 61.8%8.2%Kimi K2.6 leads
Terminal-Bench HardSource 43.9%1.5%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 53.5%17.0%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source 65.9%—Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Llama 4 ScoutResult
AA-LCRSource 69.7%25.8%Kimi K2.6 leads
CritPtSource 8.0%0.0%Kimi K2.6 leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Llama 4 ScoutResult
GPQASource 90.5%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 90.5%—Not comparable
HLESource 34.7%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 44.2%10.0%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.1%58.7%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-HLESource 35.9%4.3%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 6.4%-52.4%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 32.8%14.6%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 39.3%78.3%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA Openness IndexSource 33.3%—Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Llama 4 ScoutResult
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%0.000%Kimi K2.6 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 14.580%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Llama 4 ScoutResult
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%52.9%Kimi K2.6 leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1318793Kimi K2.6 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Llama 4 ScoutResult
AA-IFBenchSource 76.0%39.5%Kimi K2.6 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Can I compare Kimi K2.6 and Llama 4 Scout on BenchLM yet?

Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.

Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?

BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.

What data is available for Kimi K2.6 and Llama 4 Scout today?

Kimi K2.6: $0.95 input / $4.00 output per 1M tokens Llama 4 Scout: $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.

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
Llama 4 Scout
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$2,278
Break-even—
Model the full break-even

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Moonshot AI Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 13, 2026

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.