Model comparison

Kimi K2.6 vs Llama 3.2 90B

Kimi K2.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.7 to 27.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.

Kimi K2.6 Moonshot AI

47.7

Rank #60 Confirmed

Llama 3.2 90B Meta

27.5

Rank #331 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Kimi K2.6 scores higher in 4 categories and Llama 3.2 90B in 1 category; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Kimi K2.6 leads 57.0 to 11.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 96.1% for Kimi K2.6 and 2.6% for Llama 3.2 90B.

Side by side

Kimi K2.6 and Llama 3.2 90B specifications
Kimi K2.6Llama 3.2 90B
ProviderMoonshot AIMeta
Noometry Index47.727.5
Released2026-04-202024-09-24
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window262K—
Max output262K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.95—
Output $ / M tokens$4—
Results tracked519

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Kimi K2.6: 50.7 (#43), Llama 3.2 90B: —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Llama 3.2 90B
SWE-bench Verified76.7%—
LMArena WebDev1509—
SciCode53.5%—
WeirdML55.9%—
LMArena Coding1488—
ALE-Bench1,093—

Agentic & Tool Use Llama 3.2 90B leads

Kimi K2.6: 21.9 (#137), Llama 3.2 90B: 30.0 (#80)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Llama 3.2 90B
OSWorld 2.04.6%—
BALROG—27.3%
ExploitBench18.4%—
GBAEval0.9%—
GDP.pdf12%—
Vending-Bench 26,205—

Reasoning Kimi K2.6 leads

Kimi K2.6: 40.5 (#55), Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#217)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Llama 3.2 90B
Epoch Capabilities Index151.05125.5
NYT Connections (extended)87.2%—
CritPt8%—
Chess Puzzles26%—
EnigmaEval—0.4%
EBR-Bench2.4%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1470—
Mystery Game Puzzles18%—
DTBench90.9%—
LMCA37.3%—

Math Kimi K2.6 leads

Kimi K2.6: 57.0 (#41), Llama 3.2 90B: 11.1 (#308)

Knowledge Kimi K2.6 leads

Kimi K2.6: 54.0 (#54), Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#274)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Llama 3.2 90B
GPQA Diamond90.8%41%
SimpleQA Verified34.9%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.8%—
LMArena Expert1491—
MMLU—80.3%

Multimodal Kimi K2.6 leads

Kimi K2.6: 31.6 (#103), Llama 3.2 90B: 25.4 (#124)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Llama 3.2 90B
LMArena Vision12831000
GeoBench—52%
Blueprint-Bench 23.9%—
Furniture Assembly21.7%—
LMArena Document1451—

Multilingual Not comparable

Kimi K2.6: 54.9 (#37), Llama 3.2 90B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Llama 3.2 90B
LMArena Non-English1446—
LMArena Chinese1521—
LMArena French1471—
LMArena German1450—
LMArena Japanese1443—
LMArena Korean1427—
LMArena Russian1446—
LMArena Spanish1464—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Kimi K2.6: 76.3 (#43), Llama 3.2 90B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Llama 3.2 90B
LMArena Instruction Following1451—

Long Context Not comparable

Kimi K2.6: 44.9 (#52), Llama 3.2 90B: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Llama 3.2 90B
LMArena Longer Query1468—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Kimi K2.6: 68.5 (#26), Llama 3.2 90B: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Llama 3.2 90B
LMArena Text1455—
LMArena Creative Writing1434—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1725—
EQ-Bench 41202—
LMArena Multi-Turn1453—

Frequently asked questions

Is Kimi K2.6 better than Llama 3.2 90B?

Kimi K2.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.7 to 27.5 on the Noometry Index.

How many benchmarks do Kimi K2.6 and Llama 3.2 90B share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Kimi K2.6 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 90B has 9.

Related comparisons

Go deeper