Model comparison
Kimi K2.6 vs Qwen3.6-27B
Head-to-head evidence from 31 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Kimi K2.6 #74 (Estimated); Qwen3.6-27B #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Kimi K2.6 and Qwen3.6-27B share 31 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 20 results are unique to Kimi K2.6; 23 to Qwen3.6-27B.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 31
- Kimi K2.6 only
- 20
- Qwen3.6-27B only
- 23
- Comparable categories
- 5 / 8
Pick Kimi K2.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-27B only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 31 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 5 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 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 56.79 versus 53.82. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Kimi K2.6's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 73.5 against 59.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 34.7% to 24%. Qwen3.6-27B does hit back in mathematics, 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 Qwen3.6-27B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3.6-27B 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 | Qwen3.6-27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Kimi K2.667.1 | Margin→ 22.1 | Qwen3.6-27B89.2 |
| Agentic | Kimi K2.673.5 | Margin← 14.2 | Qwen3.6-27B59.3 |
| Coding | Kimi K2.664.4 | Margin→ 13.1 | Qwen3.6-27B77.5 |
| Knowledge | Kimi K2.642.2 | Margin→ 11.1 | Qwen3.6-27B53.3 |
| Multimodal | Kimi K2.679.8 | Margin← 3.1 | Qwen3.6-27B76.7 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 34.7%B 24%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 10.7HLE: Kimi K2.6 scored 34.7%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 24%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HMMT Feb 2026
MathA 92.7%B 84.3%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 8.4HMMT Feb 2026: Kimi K2.6 scored 92.7%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 84.3%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 66.7%B 59.3%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 7.4Terminal-Bench 2.0: Kimi K2.6 scored 66.7%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 59.3%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 58.6%B 53.5%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 5.1SWE-bench Pro: Kimi K2.6 scored 58.6%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 53.5%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 79.4%B 75.8%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 3.6MMMU-Pro: Kimi K2.6 scored 79.4%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 75.8%. 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 | Qwen3.6-27B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Kimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 output | Qwen3.6-27B$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.6-27B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Kimi K2.6Not available | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Kimi K2.6Not available | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Kimi K2.6256K | Qwen3.6-27B262K | Qwen3.6-27B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticKimi K2.6 wins20 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 66.7% | 59.3% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| 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% | 72.4% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| DeepSearchQASource | 92.5% | — | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | 80.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 30.3% | 27.0% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95.9% | 94.2% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 34.5% | 32.0% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1189 | 1140 | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 28.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 56.82% | 54.84% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 18.0% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 4.6% | — | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 43.9% | — | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 53.4% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1487 | Not comparable |
| AndroidWorldSource | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.6-27B wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.2% | 77.2% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | 89.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 58.6% | 53.5% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 76.7% | 71.3% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| SciCodeSource | 52.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 66.7% | 59.3% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 37.89% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | 47.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 61.8% | 53.7% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 53.5% | 39.8% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 83.9% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 36.2% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen3.6-27B wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 90.5% | 87.8% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 90.5% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 34.7% | 24% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 44.2% | 37.0% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 91.1% | 84.2% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 35.9% | 21.6% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 6.4% | -19.8% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 32.8% | 19.2% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 39.3% | 48.3% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 93.5% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 66% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 91.4% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.6-27B wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 96.4% | 94.1% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 92.7% | 84.3% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | 86.0% | 80.8% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 38.966% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 14.580% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 93.8% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 90.7% | Not comparable |
MultimodalKimi K2.6 wins19 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 79.4% | 75.8% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource | 80.1% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 80.4% | 78.4% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| MathVisionSource | 87.4% | — | Not comparable |
| V*Source | 96.9% | 94.7% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 79.4% | 74.6% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1306 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMUSource | — | 82.9% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 84.1% | Not comparable |
| DynaMathSource | — | 85.6% | Not comparable |
| MStarSource | — | 81.4% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 56.1% | Not comparable |
| CC-OCRSource | — | 81.2% | Not comparable |
| CountBenchSource | — | 97.8% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 92.5% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 62.5% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 87.7% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.4% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 76.0% | 67.6% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (6)
Which is better, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.6-27B?
Kimi K2.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 56.79 to 53.82. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 34.7% and 24%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 53.3 versus 42.2. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 64.4. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 67.1. Inside this category, HMMT Feb 2026 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.6-27B?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.5 versus 59.3. 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 Qwen3.6-27B?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79.8 versus 76.7. 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
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.