Skip to main content

Model comparison

Kimi K2.6 vs o3-mini

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 8 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.

Moonshot AI
74/100
Margin
21.0pts
← winning
OpenAI
53/100
1 category wins1 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Kimi K2.6 #13; o3-mini unranked

Evidence parity. Kimi K2.6 and o3-mini share 8 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 52 results are unique to Kimi K2.6; 3 to o3-mini.

Updated July 13, 2026
Shared results
8
Kimi K2.6 only
52
o3-mini only
3
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Kimi K2.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o3-mini only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 8 shared benchmark results across 3 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 53. 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 coding, where it averages 72.6 against 49.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 80.2% to 49.3%. o3-mini does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

o3-mini is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.10 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.95 input / $4.00 output per 1M tokens for Kimi K2.6. Kimi K2.6 gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for o3-mini.

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 o3-mini
CategoryKimi K2.6Δo3-mini
KnowledgeKimi K2.642.2Margin 35.0o3-mini77.2
CodingKimi K2.672.6Margin 23.3o3-mini49.3
AgenticKimi K2.673.5MarginNo overlapo3-miniNot measured
MathKimi K2.667.1MarginNo overlapo3-miniNot measured
MultimodalKimi K2.679.8MarginNo overlapo3-miniNot measured
Inst. FollowingKimi K2.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapo3-mini93.9

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Kimi K2.6B · o3-mini
  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 80.2%B 49.3%
    Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 30.9
    SWE-bench Verified: Kimi K2.6 scored 80.2%; o3-mini scored 49.3%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.
  2. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 90.5%B 77.2%
    Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 13.3
    GPQA: Kimi K2.6 scored 90.5%; o3-mini scored 77.2%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricKimi K2.6o3-miniComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensKimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 outputo3-mini$1.1 input / $4.4 outputKimi K2.6 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondKimi K2.6Not availableo3-mini160 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenKimi K2.6Not availableo3-mini7.12 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensKimi K2.6256Ko3-mini200KKimi K2.6 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkKimi K2.6o3-miniResult
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%28.7%Kimi K2.6 leads
GDPval-AASource 34.5%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1190Not 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 809Not 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
CodingKimi K2.6 wins
BenchmarkKimi K2.6o3-miniResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.2%49.3%Kimi K2.6 leads
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%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench HardSource 43.9%6.8%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 53.5%39.9%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source 65.9%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkKimi K2.6o3-miniResult
AA-LCRSource 69.7%Not comparable
CritPtSource 8.0%Not comparable
Knowledgeo3-mini wins
BenchmarkKimi K2.6o3-miniResult
GPQASource 90.5%77.2%Kimi K2.6 leads
GPQA-DSource 90.5%Not comparable
HLESource 34.7%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 44.2%19.0%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.1%74.8%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-HLESource 35.9%8.7%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 6.4%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 32.8%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 39.3%Not comparable
AA Openness IndexSource 33.3%Not comparable
MMLUSource 86.9%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkKimi K2.6o3-miniResult
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
AIME 2024Source 87.3%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkKimi K2.6o3-miniResult
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 1318Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkKimi K2.6o3-miniResult
AA-IFBenchSource 76.0%Not comparable
IFEvalSource 93.9%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Kimi K2.6 or o3-mini?

Kimi K2.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 74 to 53. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 80.2% and 49.3%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Kimi K2.6 or o3-mini?

o3-mini has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 42.2. Inside this category, AA-HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Kimi K2.6 or o3-mini?

Kimi K2.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.6 versus 49.3. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard 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
o3-mini
API / mo$4,125
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Model the full break-even

Related Comparisons

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.