Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Kimi K2.6 vs MiniMax M3

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 34 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

Kimi K2.6
Moonshot AI
57.04/100
Margin
12.8pts
winning →
MiniMax M3
MiniMax
69.8/100
2 category wins2 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Kimi K2.6 #11; MiniMax M3 #18

BenchAlign evidence: Kimi K2.6 estimated; MiniMax M3 supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Kimi K2.6 and MiniMax M3 share 34 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 24 results are unique to Kimi K2.6; 11 to MiniMax M3.

Updated July 16, 2026
Shared results
34
Kimi K2.6 only
24
MiniMax M3 only
11
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick Kimi K2.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiniMax M3 only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 34 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 4 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 finishes one point ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 71 to 70. That is enough to call, but not enough to treat as a blowout. This matchup comes down to a few meaningful edges rather than one model dominating the board.

Kimi K2.6's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 79.8 against 64.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is OSWorld-Verified, 73.1% to 70.1%. MiniMax M3 does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Kimi K2.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.95 input / $4.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $1.20 output per 1M tokens for MiniMax M3. That is roughly 3.3x on output cost alone. Kimi K2.6 is the reasoning model in the pair, while MiniMax M3 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. MiniMax M3 gives you the larger context window at 1M, 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 MiniMax M3
CategoryKimi K2.6ΔMiniMax M3
MathKimi K2.667.1Margin→ 18.6MiniMax M385.7
MultimodalKimi K2.679.8Margin← 14.9MiniMax M364.9
CodingKimi K2.664.4Margin→ 7.8MiniMax M372.2
AgenticKimi K2.673.5Margin← 1.2MiniMax M372.3
KnowledgeKimi K2.642.2MarginNo overlapMiniMax M3Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Kimi K2.6B · MiniMax M3

  1. OSWorld-Verified

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 73.1%B 70.1%
    Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 3
    OSWorld-Verified: Kimi K2.6 scored 73.1%; MiniMax M3 scored 70.1%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.

  2. MMMU-Pro

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 79.4%B 78.1%
    Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 1.3
    MMMU-Pro: Kimi K2.6 scored 79.4%; MiniMax M3 scored 78.1%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.

  3. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 66.7%B 66%
    Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 0.7
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Kimi K2.6 scored 66.7%; MiniMax M3 scored 66%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.

  4. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 58.6%B 59%
    Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 0.4
    SWE-bench Pro: Kimi K2.6 scored 58.6%; MiniMax M3 scored 59%. MiniMax M3 wins this benchmark.

  5. BrowseComp

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 83.2%B 83.5%
    Winner: MiniMax M3Δ 0.3
    BrowseComp: Kimi K2.6 scored 83.2%; MiniMax M3 scored 83.5%. MiniMax M3 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricKimi K2.6MiniMax M3Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensKimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 outputMiniMax M3$0.3 input / $1.2 outputMiniMax M3 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondKimi K2.6Not availableMiniMax M3Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenKimi K2.6Not availableMiniMax M3Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensKimi K2.6256KMiniMax M31MMiniMax M3 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticKimi K2.6 wins
BenchmarkKimi K2.6MiniMax M3Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 66.7%66%Kimi K2.6 leads
BrowseCompSource 83.2%83.5%MiniMax M3 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 73.1%70.1%Kimi K2.6 leads
ToolathlonSource 50%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 55.9%74.2%MiniMax M3 leads
Claw-EvalSource 62.3%74.5%MiniMax M3 leads
DeepSearchQASource 92.5%—Not comparable
WideResearchSource 80.8%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 30.3%35.4%MiniMax M3 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 95.9%88.9%Kimi K2.6 leads
GDPval-AASource 34.5%44.7%MiniMax M3 leads
GDPval-AASource 11911395MiniMax M3 leads
APEX-Agents-AASource 28.5%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 56.82%—Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 18.0%19.8%MiniMax M3 leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 4.6%4.6%Tie
AA BriefcaseSource 8151110MiniMax M3 leads
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 38.5%32.1%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA Harvey LABSource 0.0%6.7%MiniMax M3 leads
AA ITBenchSource 31.2%—Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 20.6%—Not comparable
GDPval rubricsSource —74.7%Not comparable
BankerToolBenchSource —76.1%Not comparable
CodingMiniMax M3 wins
BenchmarkKimi K2.6MiniMax M3Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.2%80.5%MiniMax M3 leads
LiveCodeBench v6Source 89.6%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 58.6%59%MiniMax M3 leads
SWE MultilingualSource 76.7%—Not comparable
SciCodeSource 52.2%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 66.7%66.0%Kimi K2.6 leads
Vibe Code BenchSource 37.89%—Not comparable
cursorBench31Source 47.6%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 61.8%58.6%Kimi K2.6 leads
Terminal-Bench HardSource 43.9%42.4%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 53.5%45.4%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source 65.9%65.2%Kimi K2.6 leads
NL2RepoSource —42.1%Not comparable
VIBE V2Source —50.1%Not comparable
SVG-BenchSource —63.7%Not comparable
KernelBench HardSource —28.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkKimi K2.6MiniMax M3Result
AA-LCRSource 69.7%74.0%MiniMax M3 leads
CritPtSource 8.0%3.7%Kimi K2.6 leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkKimi K2.6MiniMax M3Result
GPQASource 90.5%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 90.5%—Not comparable
HLESource 34.7%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 44.2%44.4%MiniMax M3 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.1%92.9%MiniMax M3 leads
AA-HLESource 35.9%37.1%MiniMax M3 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 6.4%1.4%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 32.8%15.0%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 39.3%16.1%MiniMax M3 leads
AA Openness IndexSource 33.3%33.3%Tie
MathMiniMax M3 wins
BenchmarkKimi K2.6MiniMax M3Result
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%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 14.580%—Not comparable
USAMO 2026Source —85.7%Not comparable
MultimodalKimi K2.6 wins
BenchmarkKimi K2.6MiniMax M3Result
MMMU-ProSource 79.4%78.1%Kimi K2.6 leads
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%78.6%Kimi K2.6 leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13101294Kimi K2.6 leads
OfficeQA ProSource —45.1%Not comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5Source —91.6%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —84.6%Not comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source —85.4%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkKimi K2.6MiniMax M3Result
AA-IFBenchSource 76.0%82.9%MiniMax M3 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, Kimi K2.6 or MiniMax M3?

Kimi K2.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 71 to 70. The biggest single separator in this matchup is OSWorld-Verified, where the scores are 73.1% and 70.1%.

Which is better for coding, Kimi K2.6 or MiniMax M3?

MiniMax M3 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.2 versus 64.4. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Kimi K2.6 or MiniMax M3?

MiniMax M3 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 85.7 versus 67.1. Kimi K2.6 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Kimi K2.6 or MiniMax M3?

Kimi K2.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.5 versus 72.3. Inside this category, AA Briefcase is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Kimi K2.6 or MiniMax M3?

Kimi K2.6 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79.8 versus 64.9. Inside this category, Design Arena Website 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.

Kimi K2.6
API / mo$3,713
Self-host / mo$18,221
Break-even326M/day
MiniMax M3
API / mo$1,125
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Model the full break-even

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Moonshot AI Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 16, 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.