Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Kimi K2.6 vs o1

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.

Kimi K2.6
Moonshot AI
74/100
Margin
19.0pts
← winning
o1
OpenAI
55/100
1 category wins1 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Kimi K2.6 #13; o1 unranked

Evidence parity. Kimi K2.6 and o1 share 15 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 45 results are unique to Kimi K2.6; 2 to o1.

Updated July 13, 2026
Shared results
15
Kimi K2.6 only
45
o1 only
2
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Kimi K2.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o1 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 2 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, 74 to 55. 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 9.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 38.966% to 9.310%. o1 does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

o1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $60.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.95 input / $4.00 output per 1M tokens for Kimi K2.6. That is roughly 15.0x on output cost alone. Kimi K2.6 gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for o1.

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 o1
CategoryKimi K2.6Δo1
MathKimi K2.667.1Margin← 57.8o19.3
KnowledgeKimi K2.642.2Margin→ 33.5o175.7
AgenticKimi K2.673.5MarginNo overlapo1Not measured
CodingKimi K2.672.6MarginNo overlapo1Not measured
MultimodalKimi K2.679.8MarginNo overlapo1Not measured
Inst. FollowingKimi K2.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapo192.2

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Kimi K2.6B · o1

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 38.966%B 9.310%
    Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 29.7
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Kimi K2.6 scored 38.966%; o1 scored 9.310%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.

  2. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 90.5%B 75.7%
    Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 14.8
    GPQA: Kimi K2.6 scored 90.5%; o1 scored 75.7%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricKimi K2.6o1Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensKimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 outputo1$15 input / $60 outputKimi K2.6 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondKimi K2.6Not availableo198 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenKimi K2.6Not availableo132.29 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensKimi K2.6256Ko1200KKimi K2.6 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkKimi K2.6o1Result
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
Tau2-TelecomSource 95.9%62.6%Kimi K2.6 leads
GDPval-AASource 34.5%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1190—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 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 K2.6o1Result
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%39.7%Kimi K2.6 leads
Terminal-Bench HardSource 43.9%12.9%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 53.5%35.8%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source 65.9%—Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkKimi K2.6o1Result
AA-LCRSource 69.7%59.3%Kimi K2.6 leads
CritPtSource 8.0%0.3%Kimi K2.6 leads
Knowledgeo1 wins
BenchmarkKimi K2.6o1Result
GPQASource 90.5%75.7%Kimi K2.6 leads
GPQA-DSource 90.5%—Not comparable
HLESource 34.7%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 44.2%23.4%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.1%74.7%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-HLESource 35.9%7.7%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 6.4%-10.5%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 32.8%34.7%o1 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 39.3%69.3%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA Openness IndexSource 33.3%—Not comparable
MMLUSource —91.8%Not comparable
MathKimi K2.6 wins
BenchmarkKimi K2.6o1Result
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%9.310%Kimi K2.6 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 14.580%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkKimi K2.6o1Result
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 1318—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkKimi K2.6o1Result
AA-IFBenchSource 76.0%70.3%Kimi K2.6 leads
IFEvalSource —92.2%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Kimi K2.6 or o1?

Kimi K2.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 74 to 55. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 38.966% and 9.310%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Kimi K2.6 or o1?

o1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.7 versus 42.2. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Kimi K2.6 or o1?

Kimi K2.6 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 67.1 versus 9.3. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) 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
o1
API / mo$56,250
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 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.