Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Pokee-Isaac 28B
Pokee-Isaac 28B has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Kimi K2.6 vs Pokee-Isaac 28B
Updated October 29, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Share or export
Decision reading
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead. 0 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 0
- Kimi K2.6 only
- 37
- Pokee-Isaac 28B only
- 7
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: Kimi K2.6. 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.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Pokee-Isaac 28B
Pokee-Isaac 28B has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Pokee-Isaac 28B
Pokee-Isaac 28B has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Pokee-Isaac 28B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Pokee-Isaac 28B
Pokee-Isaac 28B has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesCoding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Pokee-Isaac 28B is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Pokee-Isaac 28B is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limited
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.
42.9Kimi K2.6—Pokee-Isaac 28B
Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8
The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.
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.
37 Kimi K2.6 only
7 Pokee-Isaac 28B only
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.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
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
Not comparable- Kimi K2.6
- 44.5
- Supported · #67/135
- Pokee-Isaac 28B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 12 vs 5 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Kimi K2.6
- 42.9
- Supported · #63/156
- Pokee-Isaac 28B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 10 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Kimi K2.6
- Not ranked
- Pokee-Isaac 28B
- 57.0
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Kimi K2.6
- 73.5
- #30/58
- Pokee-Isaac 28B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Kimi K2.6
- 58.8
- Supported · #52/179
- Pokee-Isaac 28B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Kimi K2.6
- Not ranked
- Pokee-Isaac 28B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Kimi K2.6
- 83.5
- #57/157
- Pokee-Isaac 28B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Kimi K2.6
- 76.8
- #4/12
- Pokee-Isaac 28B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 4 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Kimi K2.6 | Pokee-Isaac 28B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 44.5Supported · #67/135 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 12 vs 5 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 42.9Supported · #63/156 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 10 vs 1 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not ranked | 57.0Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 73.5#30/58 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 58.8Supported · #52/179 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 83.5#57/157 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 76.8#4/12 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 4 vs 0 weighted rows | 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
- Pokee-Isaac 28B
- $0.00065
- Fits in one request
Pokee-Isaac 28B has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Kimi K2.6
- $0.0595
- Fits in one request
- Pokee-Isaac 28B
- $0.0105
- Fits in one request
Pokee-Isaac 28B has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Kimi K2.6
- $0.091
- Fits in one request
- Pokee-Isaac 28B
- $0.043
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Pokee-Isaac 28B has the lower modeled cost
Pokee-Isaac 28B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input 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.
SpecificationKimi K2.6Pokee-Isaac 28B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Kimi K2.6
256K
Pokee-Isaac 28B
API model ID
Kimi K2.6
Not sourced
Pokee-Isaac 28B
pokee-isaac
Pokee-Isaac 28B model pageCached-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
Pokee-Isaac 28B
Not published
Pokee-Isaac 28B model pageDocumented inputs
Kimi K2.6
Not sourced
Pokee-Isaac 28B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Kimi K2.6
Not sourced
Pokee-Isaac 28B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Kimi K2.6
Not sourced
Pokee-Isaac 28B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Kimi K2.6
Reasoning
Pokee-Isaac 28B
Reasoning
Weight access
Kimi K2.6
Open Weight
Pokee-Isaac 28B
Proprietary
License
Kimi K2.6
Open Weight
Pokee-Isaac 28B
Proprietary
Release date
Kimi K2.6
2026-04-20
Pokee-Isaac 28B
2026-08-03
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
- The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.0595 vs $0.0105. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.091 vs $0.043.
- Context tradeoff
- Pokee-Isaac 28B has the larger documented window (10M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Kimi K2.6 or Pokee-Isaac 28B?
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Kimi K2.6 or Pokee-Isaac 28B?
Pokee-Isaac 28B is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Kimi K2.6 or Pokee-Isaac 28B?
Pokee-Isaac 28B is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, Kimi K2.6 or Pokee-Isaac 28B?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00295 on Kimi K2.6 and $0.00065 on Pokee-Isaac 28B; repository review costs $0.0595 and $0.0105; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.091 and $0.043. Pokee-Isaac 28B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Kimi K2.6 or Pokee-Isaac 28B?
Pokee-Isaac 28B has the larger documented context window: 10M, 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$27,962
Break-even500M/day
Pokee-Isaac 28B
API / mo$863
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence44 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Kimi K2.666.7%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Kimi K2.683.2%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Kimi K2.673.1%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Kimi K2.650%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Kimi K2.655.9%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Kimi K2.662.3%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Kimi K2.692.5%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
WideResearch
Kimi K2.680.8%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Kimi K2.656.82%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Kimi K2.618.0%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Kimi K2.64.6%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Kimi K2.653.6%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Kimi K2.6—Pokee-Isaac 28B65.1%SourceNot directly comparable
BFCL v4
Kimi K2.6—Pokee-Isaac 28B70.9%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Kimi K2.6—Pokee-Isaac 28B66.2%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP-Atlas claim coverage
Kimi K2.6—Pokee-Isaac 28B74.6%SourceNot directly comparable
PinchBench
Kimi K2.6—Pokee-Isaac 28B95.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Kimi K2.680.2%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Kimi K2.689.6%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Kimi K2.658.6%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Kimi K2.676.7%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
SciCode
Kimi K2.652.2%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Kimi K2.666.7%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Kimi K2.637.89%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
cursorBench31
Kimi K2.647.6%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Kimi K2.686.8%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Kimi K2.676.2%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Kimi K2.6—Pokee-Isaac 28B65.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
MRCRv2
Kimi K2.6—Pokee-Isaac 28B60.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
Kimi K2.679.4%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ Python
Kimi K2.680.1%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Kimi K2.680.4%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
MathVision
Kimi K2.687.4%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
V*
Kimi K2.696.9%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Kimi K2.690.5%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Kimi K2.690.5%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
HLE
Kimi K2.634.7%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Kimi K2.689.1%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Kimi K2.687.6%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
Math
AIME26
Kimi K2.696.4%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Kimi K2.692.7%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Kimi K2.686.0%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Kimi K2.657.193%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Kimi K2.625.641%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
44 public results · 0 shared
Watch Kimi K2.6 vs Pokee-Isaac 28B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 6,100+ subscribers.
Last updated October 29, 2026