Compare · ModelsLive · 2 picked · head to head
Kimi K2.5 vs Kimi K2.6
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
Kimi K2.6 wins on 9/11 benchmarks
Kimi K2.6 wins 9 of 11 shared benchmarks. Leads in knowledge · math · coding.
Category leads
speed·Kimi K2.5knowledge·Kimi K2.6math·Kimi K2.6coding·Kimi K2.6
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Kimi K2.5
#104 by perf·no signal
Kimi K2.6
#106 by perf·no signal
Best value
Kimi K2.5
1.7x better value than Kimi K2.6
Kimi K2.5
43.3 pts/$
$1.20/M
Kimi K2.6
25.4 pts/$
$2.04/M
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
moonshotai
private · undisclosed
moonshotai
private · undisclosed
Head to head
11 benchmarks · 2 models
Kimi K2.5Kimi K2.6
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index
Kimi K2.5 leads by +28.7
Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?"
Kimi K2.5
58.9
Kimi K2.6
30.3
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index
Kimi K2.6 leads by +16.5
Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads.
Kimi K2.5
39.5
Kimi K2.6
56.0
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
Kimi K2.5 leads by +4.0
Kimi K2.5
46.8
Kimi K2.6
42.8
Chess Puzzles
Kimi K2.6 leads by +14.0
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
Kimi K2.5
12.0
Kimi K2.6
26.0
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
Kimi K2.6 leads by +11.1
FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning.
Kimi K2.5
27.9
Kimi K2.6
39.0
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
Kimi K2.6 leads by +10.4
FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning.
Kimi K2.5
4.2
Kimi K2.6
14.6
GPQA diamond
Kimi K2.6 leads by +4.2
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
Kimi K2.5
83.5
Kimi K2.6
87.7
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
Kimi K2.6 leads by +3.9
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
Kimi K2.5
92.2
Kimi K2.6
96.1
SimpleQA Verified
Kimi K2.6 leads by +4.8
SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information.
Kimi K2.5
33.9
Kimi K2.6
38.7
SWE-Bench verified
Kimi K2.6 leads by +2.9
SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability.
Kimi K2.5
73.8
Kimi K2.6
76.7
WeirdML
Kimi K2.6 leads by +10.3
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
Kimi K2.5
45.6
Kimi K2.6
55.9
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?" | 58.9 | 30.3 |
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads. | 39.5 | 56.0 |
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index | 46.8 | 42.8 |
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | 12.0 | 26.0 |
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning. | 27.9 | 39.0 |
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning. | 4.2 | 14.6 |
GPQA diamond Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs. | 83.5 | 87.7 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 92.2 | 96.1 |
SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information. | 33.9 | 38.7 |
SWE-Bench verified SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability. | 73.8 | 76.7 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 45.6 | 55.9 |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens