Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Kimi K2.6 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra

Updated October 14, 2026. Rank says Kimi K2.6 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInAPI/MCP

Decision reading

Kimi K2.6 has the higher public point estimate, 60.43 versus 47.25. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 13 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
Moonshot AI logo

Moonshot AI

60.43/100

Supported · Public rank #54

90% interval 51.3–69.6

Model B
NVIDIA logo

NVIDIA

47.25/100

Estimated · Public rank #105

Conditional range 32.9–61.6

Shared results
13
Kimi K2.6 only
24
Nemotron 3 Ultra only
11
Like-for-like categories
2 / 8
Supported: Kimi K2.6 · Estimated: Nemotron 3 Ultra. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works

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.

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Kimi K2.6

    Kimi K2.6 has the higher public coding point estimate, 43.2 to 21.9, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

    Confidence: limited
  • Agentic work

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

    Kimi K2.6

    Kimi K2.6 has the higher public agentic point estimate, 44.6 to 28.2, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

    Confidence: limited
  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Nemotron 3 Ultra

    Nemotron 3 Ultra has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • 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

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

    Confidence: listed-rates
  • 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

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

43.2Kimi K2.621.9Nemotron 3 Ultra

Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8

Kimi K2.6 has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Same basis rules as the category table below

What is actually comparable

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

1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

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.

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 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

Like-for-like
Kimi K2.6
44.6
Supported · #58/125
Nemotron 3 Ultra
28.2
Supported · #95/125
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 12 vs 6 public rows
Reading
Kimi K2.6 leads · intervals overlap

Coding

Like-for-like
Kimi K2.6
43.2
Supported · #56/149
Nemotron 3 Ultra
21.9
Supported · #115/149
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 10 vs 7 public rows
Reading
Kimi K2.6 leads

Knowledge

Directional only
Kimi K2.6
60.2
Supported · #48/181
Nemotron 3 Ultra
50.4
Estimated · #77/181
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 7 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Kimi K2.6
Not ranked
Nemotron 3 Ultra
70.8
#20/29
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Kimi K2.6
73.8
#27/54
Nemotron 3 Ultra
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Kimi K2.6
Not ranked
Nemotron 3 Ultra
89.2
#7/17
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Kimi K2.6
Not ranked
Nemotron 3 Ultra
92.1
#20/144
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Kimi K2.6
76.8
#4/12
Nemotron 3 Ultra
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 4 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

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
Nemotron 3 Ultra
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Nemotron 3 Ultra has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Kimi K2.6
$0.0595
Fits in one request
Nemotron 3 Ultra
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Nemotron 3 Ultra has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Kimi K2.6
$0.091
Fits in one request
Nemotron 3 Ultra
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Nemotron 3 Ultra has no comparable published API token rate.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

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

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Kimi K2.6

256K

Nemotron 3 Ultra

1M

API model ID

Kimi K2.6

Not sourced

Nemotron 3 Ultra

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

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

Kimi K2.6

$0.16 per 1M cached input tokens

Nemotron 3 Ultra

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Kimi K2.6

Not sourced

Nemotron 3 Ultra

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Kimi K2.6

Not sourced

Nemotron 3 Ultra

Not sourced

Provider availability

Kimi K2.6

Not sourced

Nemotron 3 Ultra

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Kimi K2.6

Reasoning

Nemotron 3 Ultra

Reasoning

Weight access

Kimi K2.6

Open Weight

Nemotron 3 Ultra

Open Weight

License

Kimi K2.6

Open Weight

Nemotron 3 Ultra

Open Weight

Release date

Kimi K2.6

2026-04-20

Nemotron 3 Ultra

2026-06-04

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
Kimi K2.6 has the higher public point estimate, 60.43 versus 47.25. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Nemotron 3 Ultra has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Kimi K2.6 or Nemotron 3 Ultra?

Kimi K2.6 has the higher public point estimate, 60.43 versus 47.25. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Kimi K2.6 or Nemotron 3 Ultra?

Kimi K2.6 has the higher public coding point estimate, 43.2 to 21.9, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Kimi K2.6 or Nemotron 3 Ultra?

Kimi K2.6 has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 44.6 to 28.2, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which costs less, Kimi K2.6 or Nemotron 3 Ultra?

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 Nemotron 3 Ultra?

Nemotron 3 Ultra has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.

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
Nemotron 3 Ultra
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 evidence48 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Kimi K2.666.7%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Kimi K2.683.2%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra44.4%
    Source

    Kimi K2.6 leads this result

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Kimi K2.673.1%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    Kimi K2.650%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Kimi K2.655.9%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Kimi K2.662.3%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    Kimi K2.692.5%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    Kimi K2.680.8%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Kimi K2.656.82%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    Kimi K2.618.0%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Kimi K2.64.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Kimi K2.653.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra50.9%
    Source

    Kimi K2.6 leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Kimi K2.6—
    Nemotron 3 Ultra56.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • PinchBench

    Kimi K2.6—
    Nemotron 3 Ultra90.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    Kimi K2.6—
    Nemotron 3 Ultra70.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    Kimi K2.6—
    Nemotron 3 Ultra37.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Kimi K2.680.2%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra71.9%
    Source

    Kimi K2.6 leads this result

  • LiveCodeBench v6

    Kimi K2.689.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra89.0%
    Source

    Kimi K2.6 leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Kimi K2.658.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Kimi K2.676.7%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra67.7%
    Source

    Kimi K2.6 leads this result

  • SciCode

    Kimi K2.652.2%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra44.6%
    Source

    Kimi K2.6 leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Kimi K2.666.7%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Kimi K2.637.89%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench31

    Kimi K2.647.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Kimi K2.686.8%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra86.0%
    Source

    Kimi K2.6 leads this result

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Kimi K2.676.2%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra69.0%
    Source

    Kimi K2.6 leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Kimi K2.6—
    Nemotron 3 Ultra56.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • CritPt

    Kimi K2.6—
    Nemotron 3 Ultra3.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LongBench v2

    Kimi K2.6—
    Nemotron 3 Ultra61.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    Kimi K2.679.4%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro w/ Python

    Kimi K2.680.1%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Kimi K2.680.4%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision

    Kimi K2.687.4%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • V*

    Kimi K2.696.9%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Kimi K2.690.5%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra87%
    Source

    Kimi K2.6 leads this result

  • GPQA-D

    Kimi K2.690.5%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra87.0%
    Source

    Kimi K2.6 leads this result

  • HLE

    Kimi K2.634.7%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra26.7%
    Source

    Kimi K2.6 leads this result

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Kimi K2.689.1%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra86.1%
    Source

    Kimi K2.6 leads this result

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Kimi K2.687.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra85.8%
    Source

    Kimi K2.6 leads this result

  • HLE w/o tools

    Kimi K2.6—
    Nemotron 3 Ultra26.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    Kimi K2.6—
    Nemotron 3 Ultra86.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multilingual

  • MMLU-ProX

    Kimi K2.6—
    Nemotron 3 Ultra83%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    Kimi K2.6—
    Nemotron 3 Ultra81.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME26

    Kimi K2.696.4%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Kimi K2.692.7%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMAnswerBench

    Kimi K2.686.0%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Kimi K2.657.193%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Kimi K2.625.641%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

48 public results · 13 shared

Watch Kimi K2.6 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra

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

Read a sample issue

Join 5,500+ readers.

Last updated October 14, 2026