Model comparison
Kimi K2.5 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 40 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Kimi K2.5 #22; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #31
BenchAlign evidence: Kimi K2.5 supported; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Kimi K2.5 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B share 40 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 24 results are unique to Kimi K2.5; 18 to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 40
- Kimi K2.5 only
- 24
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
- 18
- Comparable categories
- 5 / 8
Pick Kimi K2.5 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 40 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 K2.5 has the cleaner provisional overall profile here, landing at 61 versus 59. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Kimi K2.5's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 57.2 against 51.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 30.1% to 21.4%. 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 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Kimi K2.5 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 256K for Kimi K2.5.
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 | Δ | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Kimi K2.560.6 | Margin→ 27.6 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B88.2 |
| Coding | Kimi K2.559.4 | Margin→ 14.4 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B73.8 |
| Knowledge | Kimi K2.557.2 | Margin← 5.4 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.8 |
| Agentic | Kimi K2.555.0 | Margin← 3.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5 |
| Multimodal | Kimi K2.578.5 | Margin← 2.2 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B76.3 |
| Reasoning | Kimi K2.561.0 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot measured |
| Multilingual | Kimi K2.582.3 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot measured |
| Inst. Following | Kimi K2.593.9 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 30.1%B 21.4%Winner: Kimi K2.5Δ 8.7HLE: Kimi K2.5 scored 30.1%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 21.4%. Kimi K2.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SuperGPQA
KnowledgeA 69.2%B 64.7%Winner: Kimi K2.5Δ 4.5SuperGPQA: Kimi K2.5 scored 69.2%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 64.7%. Kimi K2.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HMMT Feb 2026
MathA 87.1%B 83.6%Winner: Kimi K2.5Δ 3.5HMMT Feb 2026: Kimi K2.5 scored 87.1%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 83.6%. Kimi K2.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 76.8%B 73.4%Winner: Kimi K2.5Δ 3.4SWE-bench Verified: Kimi K2.5 scored 76.8%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 73.4%. Kimi K2.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 78.5%B 75.3%Winner: Kimi K2.5Δ 3.2MMMU-Pro: Kimi K2.5 scored 78.5%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 75.3%. Kimi K2.5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Kimi K2.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Kimi K2.5$0.6 input / $3 output | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Kimi K2.545 tok/s | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Kimi K2.52.38 s | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Kimi K2.5256K | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B262K | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticKimi K2.5 wins21 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 50.8% | 51.5% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 60.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 52.3% | 68.7% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| QwenClawBenchSource | 54.3% | 52.6% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 65.7% | 67.2% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| DeepSearchQASource | 77.1% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | 14.4% | 25.9% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| ToolathlonSource | 27.8% | 26.9% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| MCP AtlasSource | 29.5% | 62.8% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| MCP-TasksSource | 59.1% | — | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | 72.7% | 60.1% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95.9% | 95.3% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 11.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 45.88% | 42.65% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 14.0% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 8.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 21.7% | 21.4% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 25.4% | 27.4% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1009 | 1049 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1397 | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 35.6% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 76.8% | 73.4% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | 70.8% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | 85.0% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 50.7% | 49.5% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 73% | 67.2% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 58.5% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 77.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | 48.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 34.8% | 34.8% | Tie |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 49.0% | 35.8% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 46.8% | 41.9% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 51.5% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 29.4% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
KnowledgeKimi K2.5 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 87.6% | 86% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 87.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 69.2% | 64.7% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 87.1% | 85.2% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | 87.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 30.1% | 21.4% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 35.4% | 31.6% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 87.9% | 84.1% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 29.4% | 20.2% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -8.1% | -21.4% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 34.3% | 18.9% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 64.6% | 49.7% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| C-EvalSource | — | 90% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME 2025Source | 96.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | 95.8% | 92.7% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| AIME25 (Arcee)Source | 96.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | 95.4% | 90.7% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | 91.1% | 89.1% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 87.1% | 83.6% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | 81.8% | 78.9% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 27.900% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 4.200% | — | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
MultimodalKimi K2.5 wins18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 78.5% | 75.3% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| Video-MMESource | 87.4% | — | Not comparable |
| MMVUSource | 80.4% | — | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | 86.6% | 83.7% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 75.4% | 75.0% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1284 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMUSource | — | 81.7% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 85.3% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | — | 89.9% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 78% | 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 |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (6)
Which is better, Kimi K2.5 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Kimi K2.5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 61 to 59. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 30.1% and 21.4%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Kimi K2.5 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Kimi K2.5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 57.2 versus 51.8. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Accuracy is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Kimi K2.5 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.8 versus 59.4. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Kimi K2.5 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 88.2 versus 60.6. Inside this category, HMMT Feb 2025 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Kimi K2.5 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Kimi K2.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 55 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 K2.5 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Kimi K2.5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.5 versus 76.3. 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
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.