Model comparison
Kimi K2.6 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Head-to-head evidence from 25 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Kimi K2.6 #13; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B #26
Evidence parity. Kimi K2.6 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B share 25 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 35 results are unique to Kimi K2.6; 7 to Qwen3.5-122B-A10B.
Updated July 13, 2026- Shared results
- 25
- Kimi K2.6 only
- 35
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B only
- 7
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Kimi K2.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 25 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 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 74 to 59. 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 agentic, where it averages 73.5 against 56.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is BrowseComp, 83.2% to 63.8%. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B does hit back in knowledge, 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 $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5-122B-A10B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B gives you the larger context window at 262K, 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 | Kimi K2.6 | Δ | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Kimi K2.642.2 | Margin→ 41.4 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B83.6 |
| Agentic | Kimi K2.673.5 | Margin← 17.1 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B56.4 |
| Multimodal | Kimi K2.679.8 | Margin← 2.6 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B77.2 |
| Coding | Kimi K2.672.6 | Margin← 0.6 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B72.0 |
| Reasoning | Kimi K2.6Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B60.2 |
| Math | Kimi K2.667.1 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-122B-A10BNot measured |
| Multilingual | Kimi K2.6Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B82.2 |
| Inst. Following | Kimi K2.6Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B93.4 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 83.2%B 63.8%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 19.4BrowseComp: Kimi K2.6 scored 83.2%; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 63.8%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 66.7%B 49.4%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 17.3Terminal-Bench 2.0: Kimi K2.6 scored 66.7%; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 49.4%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
OSWorld-Verified
AgenticA 73.1%B 58%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 15.1OSWorld-Verified: Kimi K2.6 scored 73.1%; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 58%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 80.2%B 72%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 8.2SWE-bench Verified: Kimi K2.6 scored 80.2%; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 72%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 90.5%B 86.6%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 3.9GPQA: Kimi K2.6 scored 90.5%; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 86.6%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Kimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 output | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Kimi K2.6Not available | Qwen3.5-122B-A10BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Kimi K2.6Not available | Qwen3.5-122B-A10BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Kimi K2.6256K | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B262K | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticKimi K2.6 wins22 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 66.7% | 49.4% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 83.2% | 63.8% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 73.1% | 58% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| 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% | 20.7% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Tau2-TelecomSource | 95.9% | 93.6% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 34.5% | 24.0% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1190 | 980 | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| 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 |
CodingKimi K2.6 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.2% | 72% | 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% | 45.7% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 43.9% | 31.1% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 53.5% | 42.0% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | 65.9% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen3.5-122B-A10B wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 90.5% | 86.6% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 90.5% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 34.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 44.2% | 32.3% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 91.1% | 85.7% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 35.9% | 23.4% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 6.4% | -39.6% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 32.8% | 24.7% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 39.3% | 85.5% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 33.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 86.7% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 67.1% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProXSource | — | 82.2% | Not comparable |
MultimodalKimi K2.6 wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 79.4% | — | Not comparable |
| MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource | 80.1% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 80.4% | 77.2% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| MathVisionSource | 87.4% | 86.2% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| V*Source | 96.9% | 93.2% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 79.4% | 75.0% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1318 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMUSource | — | 83.9% | Not comparable |
| MMVUSource | — | 74.7% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?
Kimi K2.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 74 to 59. The biggest single separator in this matchup is BrowseComp, where the scores are 83.2% and 63.8%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 83.6 versus 42.2. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.6 versus 72. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.5 versus 56.4. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79.8 versus 77.2. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro 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.
Related Comparisons
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.