Model comparison
Kimi K2.6 vs Qwen3.5 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Kimi K2.6 #13; Qwen3.5 Flash unranked
Evidence parity. Kimi K2.6 and Qwen3.5 Flash share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 58 results are unique to Kimi K2.6; 0 to Qwen3.5 Flash.
Updated July 13, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Kimi K2.6 only
- 58
- Qwen3.5 Flash only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Kimi K2.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 Flash only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 1 evidence category; 1 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 48. 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 4.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 38.966% to 6.207%.
Kimi K2.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.95 input / $4.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.10 input / $0.40 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5 Flash. That is roughly 10.0x on output cost alone. Qwen3.5 Flash gives you the larger context window at 1M, 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 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Kimi K2.667.1 | Margin← 62.4 | Qwen3.5 Flash4.7 |
| Agentic | Kimi K2.673.5 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 FlashNot measured |
| Coding | Kimi K2.672.6 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 FlashNot measured |
| Knowledge | Kimi K2.642.2 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 FlashNot measured |
| Multimodal | Kimi K2.679.8 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 FlashNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 38.966%B 6.207%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 32.8FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Kimi K2.6 scored 38.966%; Qwen3.5 Flash scored 6.207%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 14.580%B 0.000%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 14.6FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Kimi K2.6 scored 14.580%; Qwen3.5 Flash scored 0.000%. 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 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Kimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 output | Qwen3.5 Flash$0.1 input / $0.4 output | Qwen3.5 Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Kimi K2.6Not available | Qwen3.5 FlashNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Kimi K2.6Not available | Qwen3.5 FlashNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Kimi K2.6256K | Qwen3.5 Flash1M | Qwen3.5 Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic22 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.5 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
Coding13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.5 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 43.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 53.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | 65.9% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.5 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 90.5% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 90.5% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 34.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 44.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 91.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 35.9% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
MathKimi K2.6 wins5 benchmarks
Multimodal7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.5 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.5 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 76.0% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.5 Flash?
Kimi K2.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 74 to 48. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 38.966% and 6.207%.
Which is better for math, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.5 Flash?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 67.1 versus 4.7. 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.
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.