Model comparison
Kimi 3 vs Qwen3.6-27B
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Kimi 3 unranked; Qwen3.6-27B #22
Evidence parity. Kimi 3 and Qwen3.6-27B share 0 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Kimi 3; 55 to Qwen3.6-27B.
Updated July 14, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- Kimi 3 only
- 0
- Qwen3.6-27B only
- 55
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Kimi 3 and Qwen3.6-27B is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM does not have sourced benchmark coverage for Kimi 3 yet. This comparison is currently limited to metadata such as context window, reasoning mode, and pricing where available.
Qwen3.6-27B has the larger context window at 262K, compared with null for Kimi 3.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Kimi 3 | Qwen3.6-27B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Kimi 3Not available | Qwen3.6-27B$0 input / $0 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Kimi 3Not available | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Kimi 3Not available | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Kimi 3Not available | Qwen3.6-27B262K | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi 3 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.3% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 72.4% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 53.4% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1487 | Not comparable |
| AndroidWorldSource | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 27.0% | Not comparable |
| Tau2-TelecomSource | — | 94.2% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 32.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1140 | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 54.84% | Not comparable |
Coding9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi 3 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 77.2% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 71.3% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 53.5% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.3% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 83.9% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 36.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 53.7% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | — | 34.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 39.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi 3 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 93.5% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 66% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 91.4% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 87.8% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 24% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 37.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 84.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 21.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -19.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 19.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 48.3% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multimodal16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi 3 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMUSource | — | 82.9% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.8% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 84.1% | Not comparable |
| DynaMathSource | — | 85.6% | Not comparable |
| MStarSource | — | 81.4% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 56.1% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 78.4% | 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 |
| V*Source | — | 94.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 74.6% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi 3 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 67.6% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Kimi 3 and Qwen3.6-27B on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for Kimi 3 and Qwen3.6-27B today?
Kimi 3: Pricing unavailable Qwen3.6-27B: $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
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.