Model comparison
Kimi K2.6 vs Qwen Plus
Kimi K2.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 36.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Plus costs 2.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Kimi K2.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Kimi K2.6 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen Plus in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Kimi K2.6 leads 56.8 to 22.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 96.1% for Kimi K2.6 and 17.8% for Qwen Plus.
- Qwen Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.95 / $4 for Kimi K2.6.
- Qwen Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
- Kimi K2.6 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Kimi K2.6 | Qwen Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Moonshot AI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 47.5 | 36.7 |
| Released | 2026-04-20 | 2024-01-25 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 262K | 1M |
| Max output | 262K | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.95 | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4 | $1.20 |
| Results tracked | 51 | 20 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Kimi K2.6 leads
Kimi K2.6: 50.5 (#41), Qwen Plus: 38.3 (#163)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1488 | 1328 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 76.7% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1509 | — |
| SciCode | 53.5% | — |
| WeirdML | 55.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,093 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Kimi K2.6: 21.8 (#128), Qwen Plus: —
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| OSWorld 2.0 | 4.6% | — |
| ExploitBench | 18.4% | — |
| GBAEval | 0.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 12% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 6,205 | — |
Reasoning Kimi K2.6 leads
Kimi K2.6: 39.6 (#51), Qwen Plus: 27.6 (#101)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1470 | 1317 |
| DTBench | 90.9% | 81.1% |
| LMCA | 37.3% | 24% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 63.3% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 87.2% | — |
| CritPt | 8% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 26% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 2.4% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 18% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.03 | — |
Math Kimi K2.6 leads
Kimi K2.6: 56.8 (#34), Qwen Plus: 22.0 (#266)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 96.1% | 17.8% |
| LMArena Math | 1475 | 1326 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 39% | 1.7% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 57.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 25.6% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 72.9% | — |
| ProofBench | 16% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 65.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 14.6% | — |
Knowledge Kimi K2.6 leads
Kimi K2.6: 53.9 (#48), Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#245)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.8% | 48.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1491 | 1328 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34.9% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.8% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Kimi K2.6: 31.8 (#95), Qwen Plus: —
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1282 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 3.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 21.7% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1451 | — |
Multilingual Kimi K2.6 leads
Kimi K2.6: 55.1 (#35), Qwen Plus: 45.3 (#170)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1446 | 1310 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1521 | 1347 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1442 | 1251 |
| LMArena Russian | 1446 | 1323 |
| LMArena French | 1471 | — |
| LMArena German | 1449 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1428 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1463 | — |
Instruction Following Kimi K2.6 leads
Kimi K2.6: 76.5 (#40), Qwen Plus: 69.0 (#176)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | 1303 |
Long Context Kimi K2.6 leads
Kimi K2.6: 44.9 (#50), Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#153)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1468 | 1325 |
Writing & Preference Kimi K2.6 leads
Kimi K2.6: 68.7 (#25), Qwen Plus: 52.4 (#171)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1455 | 1326 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1434 | 1293 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1453 | 1336 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1725 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1202 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Kimi K2.6 better than Qwen Plus?
Kimi K2.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 36.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Plus costs 2.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Kimi K2.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen Plus?
Qwen Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Kimi K2.6 lists at $0.95 and $4.
Is Kimi K2.6 or Qwen Plus better for coding?
Kimi K2.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 38.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen Plus does, with 1M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do Kimi K2.6 and Qwen Plus share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Kimi K2.6 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Plus has 20.