Model comparison
Kimi K2.6 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 34 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Kimi K2.6 #11; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #31
BenchAlign evidence: Kimi K2.6 estimated; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Kimi K2.6 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B share 34 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 23 results are unique to Kimi K2.6; 24 to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 34
- Kimi K2.6 only
- 23
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
- 24
- Comparable categories
- 5 / 8
Pick Kimi K2.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you need the larger 262K context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 34 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 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 71 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 51.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 66.7% to 51.5%. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B 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 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Kimi K2.673.5 | Margin← 22.0 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5 |
| Math | Kimi K2.667.1 | Margin→ 21.1 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B88.2 |
| Knowledge | Kimi K2.642.2 | Margin→ 9.6 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.8 |
| Coding | Kimi K2.664.4 | Margin→ 9.4 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B73.8 |
| Multimodal | Kimi K2.679.8 | Margin← 3.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B76.3 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 66.7%B 51.5%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 15.2Terminal-Bench 2.0: Kimi K2.6 scored 66.7%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 51.5%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 34.7%B 21.4%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 13.3HLE: Kimi K2.6 scored 34.7%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 21.4%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HMMT Feb 2026
MathA 92.7%B 83.6%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 9.1HMMT Feb 2026: Kimi K2.6 scored 92.7%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 83.6%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 58.6%B 49.5%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 9.1SWE-bench Pro: Kimi K2.6 scored 58.6%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 49.5%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 80.2%B 73.4%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 6.8SWE-bench Verified: Kimi K2.6 scored 80.2%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 73.4%. 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 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Kimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 output | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Kimi K2.6Not available | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Kimi K2.6Not available | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Kimi K2.6256K | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B262K | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticKimi K2.6 wins25 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 66.7% | 51.5% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 83.2% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 73.1% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 50% | 26.9% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| MCP AtlasSource | 55.9% | 62.8% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | 62.3% | 68.7% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| DeepSearchQASource | 92.5% | — | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | 80.8% | 60.1% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 30.3% | 21.4% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95.9% | 95.3% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 34.5% | 27.4% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1190 | 1049 | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 28.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 56.82% | 42.65% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 18.0% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 4.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 811 | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 38.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 31.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 20.6% | — | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 52.6% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1397 | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 67.2% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 35.6% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 25.9% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.2% | 73.4% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | 89.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 58.6% | 49.5% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 76.7% | 67.2% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| SciCodeSource | 52.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 66.7% | 51.5% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 37.89% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | 47.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 61.8% | 41.9% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 43.9% | 34.8% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 53.5% | 35.8% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | 65.9% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 29.4% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 90.5% | 86% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 90.5% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 34.7% | 21.4% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 44.2% | 31.6% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 91.1% | 84.1% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 35.9% | 20.2% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 6.4% | -21.4% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 32.8% | 18.9% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 39.3% | 49.7% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 33.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 85.2% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 64.7% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 90% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 96.4% | 92.7% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 92.7% | 83.6% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | 86.0% | 78.9% | 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 | — | 90.7% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
MultimodalKimi K2.6 wins19 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 79.4% | 75.3% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource | 80.1% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 80.4% | 78% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| MathVisionSource | 87.4% | — | Not comparable |
| V*Source | 96.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 79.4% | 75.0% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1310 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMUSource | — | 81.7% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 85.3% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | — | 89.9% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 58.9% | Not comparable |
| CC-OCRSource | — | 81.9% | Not comparable |
| AI2D_TESTSource | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 92.0% | Not comparable |
| ODINW13Source | — | 50.8% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (w/o subtitle)Source | — | 82.5% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 83.7% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 76.0% | 64.4% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (6)
Which is better, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Kimi K2.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 71 to 59. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 66.7% and 51.5%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 51.8 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 Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.8 versus 64.4. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 88.2 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 Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.5 versus 51.5. 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 Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79.8 versus 76.3. 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.