Model comparison
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) vs Qwen3.6-27B
Head-to-head evidence from 22 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) #57 (Estimated); Qwen3.6-27B #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) and Qwen3.6-27B share 22 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 5 results are unique to Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning); 32 to Qwen3.6-27B.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 22
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) only
- 5
- Qwen3.6-27B only
- 32
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-27B only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 22 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 4 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 59.35 to 53.82. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)'s sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 87.2 against 53.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 50.8% to 59.3%. Qwen3.6-27B does hit back in agentic, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.60 input / $3.00 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 128K for Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning).
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 K2.5 (Reasoning) | Δ | Qwen3.6-27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)87.2 | Margin← 33.9 | Qwen3.6-27B53.3 |
| Agentic | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)55.0 | Margin→ 4.3 | Qwen3.6-27B59.3 |
| Multimodal | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)78.5 | Margin← 1.8 | Qwen3.6-27B76.7 |
| Coding | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)76.8 | Margin→ 0.7 | Qwen3.6-27B77.5 |
| Math | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B89.2 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 50.8%B 59.3%Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 8.5Terminal-Bench 2.0: Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) scored 50.8%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 59.3%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 78.5%B 75.8%Winner: Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Δ 2.7MMMU-Pro: Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) scored 78.5%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 75.8%. Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 87.1%B 86.2%Winner: Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Δ 0.9MMLU-Pro: Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) scored 87.1%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 86.2%. Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 76.8%B 77.2%Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 0.4SWE-bench Verified: Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) scored 76.8%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 77.2%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 87.6%B 87.8%Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 0.2GPQA: Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) scored 87.6%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 87.8%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Qwen3.6-27B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)$0.6 input / $3 output | Qwen3.6-27B$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.6-27B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Not available | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Not available | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)128K | Qwen3.6-27B262K | Qwen3.6-27B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticQwen3.6-27B wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 50.8% | 59.3% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 60.6% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 11.5% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95.9% | 94.2% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 32.58% | 54.84% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 21.7% | 27.0% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 25.4% | 32.0% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1009 | 1140 | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 72.4% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 53.4% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1487 | Not comparable |
| AndroidWorldSource | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.6-27B wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 76.8% | 77.2% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 17.54% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 49.0% | 39.8% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 46.8% | 53.7% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| 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 |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeKimi K2.5 (Reasoning) wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 87.6% | 87.8% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 87.1% | 86.2% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 35.4% | 37.0% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 87.9% | 84.2% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 29.4% | 21.6% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -8.1% | -19.8% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 34.3% | 19.2% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 64.6% | 48.3% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 93.5% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 66% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 91.4% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 24% | Not comparable |
Math6 benchmarks
MultimodalKimi K2.5 (Reasoning) wins17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 78.5% | 75.8% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 75.4% | 74.6% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1279 | — | 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 |
| 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 |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 70.2% | 67.6% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) or Qwen3.6-27B?
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 59.35 to 53.82. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 50.8% and 59.3%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) or Qwen3.6-27B?
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 87.2 versus 53.3. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 76.8. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 59.3 versus 55. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) or Qwen3.6-27B?
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.5 versus 76.7. Inside this category, 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.