Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Kimi K2.6 vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 35 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

Kimi K2.6
Moonshot AI
56.79/100
Margin
10.4pts
winning →
67.22/100
1 category wins4 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Kimi K2.6 #74 (Estimated); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Kimi K2.6 and Qwen3.7 Plus share 35 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 16 results are unique to Kimi K2.6; 34 to Qwen3.7 Plus.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
35
Kimi K2.6 only
16
Qwen3.7 Plus only
34
Comparable categories
5 / 8

Pick Qwen3.7 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Kimi K2.6 only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 35 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

Qwen3.7 Plus is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 67.22 to 56.79. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.7 Plus's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 92.9 against 67.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 80.4% to 85.9%. Kimi K2.6 does hit back in agentic, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Qwen3.7 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 Qwen3.7 Plus
CategoryKimi K2.6ΔQwen3.7 Plus
MathKimi K2.667.1Margin→ 25.8Qwen3.7 Plus92.9
KnowledgeKimi K2.642.2Margin→ 17.9Qwen3.7 Plus60.1
CodingKimi K2.664.4Margin→ 11.2Qwen3.7 Plus75.6
AgenticKimi K2.673.5Margin← 1.8Qwen3.7 Plus71.7
MultimodalKimi K2.679.8Margin→ 1.7Qwen3.7 Plus81.5
ReasoningKimi K2.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus91.7
MultilingualKimi K2.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus85.4
Inst. FollowingKimi K2.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus84.5

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Kimi K2.6B · Qwen3.7 Plus

  1. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 80.4%B 85.9%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 5.5
    CharXiv: Kimi K2.6 scored 80.4%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 85.9%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 66.7%B 70.3%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 3.6
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Kimi K2.6 scored 66.7%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 70.3%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 80.2%B 77.7%
    Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 2.5
    SWE-bench Verified: Kimi K2.6 scored 80.2%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 77.7%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.

  4. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 58.6%B 57.6%
    Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 1
    SWE-bench Pro: Kimi K2.6 scored 58.6%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 57.6%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.

  5. SciCode

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 52.2%B 51.3%
    Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 0.9
    SciCode: Kimi K2.6 scored 52.2%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 51.3%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricKimi K2.6Qwen3.7 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensKimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 outputQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondKimi K2.6Not availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenKimi K2.6Not availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensKimi K2.6256KQwen3.7 Plus1MQwen3.7 Plus lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticKimi K2.6 wins
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen3.7 PlusResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 66.7%70.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
BrowseCompSource 83.2%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 73.1%73.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
ToolathlonSource 50%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 55.9%73.2%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Claw-EvalSource 62.3%62.7%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
DeepSearchQASource 92.5%—Not comparable
WideResearchSource 80.8%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 30.3%20.8%Kimi K2.6 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 95.9%93%Kimi K2.6 leads
GDPval-AASource 34.5%21.8%Kimi K2.6 leads
GDPval-AASource 1189936Kimi K2.6 leads
APEX-Agents-AASource 28.5%22.4%Kimi K2.6 leads
Gert LabsSource 56.82%—Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 18.0%—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 4.6%2.8%Kimi K2.6 leads
terminalBenchHardSource 43.9%—Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —61.8%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1536Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —72.9%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —45.6%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —62.3%Not comparable
AndroidWorldSource —81.0%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen3.7 PlusResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.2%77.7%Kimi K2.6 leads
LiveCodeBench v6Source 89.6%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 58.6%57.6%Kimi K2.6 leads
SWE MultilingualSource 76.7%75.8%Kimi K2.6 leads
SciCodeSource 52.2%51.3%Kimi K2.6 leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 66.7%70.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Vibe Code BenchSource 37.89%—Not comparable
cursorBench31Source 47.6%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 61.8%55.9%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 53.5%45.5%Kimi K2.6 leads
NL2RepoSource —41.1%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —89.6%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-LCRSource 69.7%65.0%Kimi K2.6 leads
CritPtSource 8.0%9.1%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MRCRv2Source —91.7%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen3.7 PlusResult
GPQASource 90.5%90.3%Kimi K2.6 leads
GPQA-DSource 90.5%90.3%Kimi K2.6 leads
HLESource 34.7%34.7%Tie
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 44.2%39.0%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.1%90.0%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-HLESource 35.9%33.4%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 6.4%2.4%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 32.8%22.2%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 39.3%25.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MMLU-ProSource —88.5%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.5%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —71.4%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —89.0%Not comparable
MathQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen3.7 PlusResult
AIME26Source 96.4%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 92.7%92.9%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MMAnswerBenchSource 86.0%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 38.966%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 14.580%—Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —86.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —22.7%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen3.7 PlusResult
MMLU-ProXSource —85.4%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —58.8%Not comparable
INCLUDESource —83.0%Not comparable
MAXIFESource —88.8%Not comparable
PolyMathSource —84.0%Not comparable
MultimodalQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen3.7 PlusResult
MMMU-ProSource 79.4%79%Kimi K2.6 leads
MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource 80.1%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 80.4%85.9%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MathVisionSource 87.4%90.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
V*Source 96.9%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 79.4%80.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13061288Kimi K2.6 leads
ERQASource —69.8%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —71.0%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —79.0%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —81.7%Not comparable
MMSearch-PlusSource —41.4%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource —86.9%Not comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5Source —91.4%Not comparable
OCRBench V2Source —70.7%Not comparable
ODINW13Source —51.1%Not comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source —88.0%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —85.4%Not comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)Source —87.4%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-IFBenchSource 76.0%78.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
IFEvalSource —94.6%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (6)

Which is better, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.22 to 56.79. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 80.4% and 85.9%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60.1 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 Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 75.6 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 Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 92.9 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 Qwen3.7 Plus?

Kimi K2.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.5 versus 71.7. 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 Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.5 versus 79.8. Inside this category, Design Arena Website 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.

Kimi K2.6
API / mo$3,713
Self-host / mo$18,221
Break-even326M/day
Qwen3.7 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 23, 2026

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.