Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Kimi K2.6 vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 41 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.

Kimi K2.6
Moonshot AI
74/100
Margin
10.0pts
← winning
64/100
3 category wins1 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Kimi K2.6 #13; Qwen3.6 Plus #17

Evidence parity. Kimi K2.6 and Qwen3.6 Plus share 41 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 19 results are unique to Kimi K2.6; 20 to Qwen3.6 Plus.

Updated July 13, 2026
Shared results
41
Kimi K2.6 only
19
Qwen3.6 Plus only
20
Comparable categories
5 / 8

Pick Kimi K2.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6 Plus only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 41 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, 74 to 64. 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 61.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 38.966% to 26.207%. Qwen3.6 Plus does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Qwen3.6 Plus 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 scores and score margins for Kimi K2.6 and Qwen3.6 Plus
CategoryKimi K2.6ΔQwen3.6 Plus
KnowledgeKimi K2.642.2Margin→ 15.3Qwen3.6 Plus57.5
AgenticKimi K2.673.5Margin← 11.9Qwen3.6 Plus61.6
CodingKimi K2.672.6Margin← 7.7Qwen3.6 Plus64.9
MathKimi K2.667.1Margin← 6.6Qwen3.6 Plus60.5
MultimodalKimi K2.679.8MarginTieQwen3.6 Plus79.8
ReasoningKimi K2.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6 Plus62.0
MultilingualKimi K2.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6 Plus84.7
Inst. FollowingKimi K2.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6 Plus82.3

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Kimi K2.6B · Qwen3.6 Plus

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 38.966%B 26.207%
    Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 12.8
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Kimi K2.6 scored 38.966%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 26.207%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.

  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 14.580%B 8.333%
    Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 6.2
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Kimi K2.6 scored 14.580%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 8.333%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.

  3. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 34.7%B 28.8%
    Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 5.9
    HLE: Kimi K2.6 scored 34.7%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 28.8%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.

  4. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 66.7%B 61.6%
    Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 5.1
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Kimi K2.6 scored 66.7%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 61.6%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.

  5. HMMT Feb 2026

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 92.7%B 87.8%
    Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 4.9
    HMMT Feb 2026: Kimi K2.6 scored 92.7%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 87.8%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricKimi K2.6Qwen3.6 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensKimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 outputQwen3.6 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondKimi K2.6Not availableQwen3.6 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenKimi K2.6Not availableQwen3.6 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensKimi K2.6256KQwen3.6 Plus1MQwen3.6 Plus lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticKimi K2.6 wins
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen3.6 PlusResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 66.7%61.6%Kimi K2.6 leads
BrowseCompSource 83.2%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 73.1%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 50%39.8%Kimi K2.6 leads
MCP AtlasSource 55.9%48.2%Kimi K2.6 leads
Claw-EvalSource 62.3%58.8%Kimi K2.6 leads
DeepSearchQASource 92.5%—Not comparable
WideResearchSource 80.8%74.3%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 30.3%27.6%Kimi K2.6 leads
Tau2-TelecomSource 95.9%97.7%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
GDPval-AASource 34.5%31.8%Kimi K2.6 leads
GDPval-AASource 11901135Kimi K2.6 leads
APEX-Agents-AASource 28.5%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 56.82%50.60%Kimi K2.6 leads
ResearchClawBenchSource 18.0%18.0%Tie
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
QwenClawBenchSource —57.2%Not comparable
TAU3-BenchSource —70.7%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —44.3%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —41.5%Not comparable
MCP-TasksSource —74.1%Not comparable
CodingKimi K2.6 wins
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen3.6 PlusResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.2%78.8%Kimi K2.6 leads
LiveCodeBenchSource 89.6%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench v6Source 89.6%87.1%Kimi K2.6 leads
SWE-bench ProSource 58.6%56.6%Kimi K2.6 leads
SWE MultilingualSource 76.7%73.8%Kimi K2.6 leads
SciCodeSource 52.2%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 66.7%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 37.89%25.56%Kimi K2.6 leads
cursorBench31Source 47.6%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 61.8%54.5%Kimi K2.6 leads
Terminal-Bench HardSource 43.9%43.9%Tie
AA-SciCodeSource 53.5%40.7%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source 65.9%—Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen3.6 PlusResult
AA-LCRSource 69.7%69.7%Tie
CritPtSource 8.0%2.9%Kimi K2.6 leads
AI-NeedleSource —68.3%Not comparable
LongBench v2Source —62%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3.6 Plus wins
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen3.6 PlusResult
GPQASource 90.5%90.4%Kimi K2.6 leads
GPQA-DSource 90.5%—Not comparable
HLESource 34.7%28.8%Kimi K2.6 leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 44.2%39.6%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.1%88.2%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-HLESource 35.9%25.7%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 6.4%2.7%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 32.8%26.2%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 39.3%32.0%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
AA Openness IndexSource 33.3%—Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —71.6%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —88.5%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.5%Not comparable
C-EvalSource —93.3%Not comparable
MathKimi K2.6 wins
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen3.6 PlusResult
AIME26Source 96.4%95.3%Kimi K2.6 leads
HMMT Feb 2026Source 92.7%87.8%Kimi K2.6 leads
MMAnswerBenchSource 86.0%83.8%Kimi K2.6 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 38.966%26.207%Kimi K2.6 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 14.580%8.333%Kimi K2.6 leads
HMMT Feb 2025Source —96.7%Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source —94.6%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen3.6 PlusResult
MMLU-ProXSource —84.7%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —57.9%Not comparable
MultimodalTie
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen3.6 PlusResult
MMMU-ProSource 79.4%78.8%Kimi K2.6 leads
MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource 80.1%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 80.4%81.5%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
MathVisionSource 87.4%88.0%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
V*Source 96.9%96.9%Tie
AA-MMMU-ProSource 79.4%78.0%Kimi K2.6 leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13181262Kimi K2.6 leads
MMMUSource —86.0%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —84.0%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —68.2%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen3.6 PlusResult
AA-IFBenchSource 76.0%75.2%Kimi K2.6 leads
IFEvalSource —94.3%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —75.8%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (6)

Which is better, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Kimi K2.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 74 to 64. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 38.966% and 26.207%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 57.5 versus 42.2. Inside this category, AA-HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Kimi K2.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.6 versus 64.9. 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 Plus?

Kimi K2.6 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 67.1 versus 60.5. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Kimi K2.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.5 versus 61.6. 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 Plus?

Kimi K2.6 and Qwen3.6 Plus are effectively tied for multimodal and grounded tasks here, both landing at 79.8 on average.

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$18,221
Break-even326M/day
Qwen3.6 Plus
API / mo$0
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Model the full break-even

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Moonshot AI Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 13, 2026

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.