Model comparison
Kimi K2.6 vs MiniMax-M2.1
Kimi K2.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.1 costs 3.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Kimi K2.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.
MiniMaxSummary
- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. Kimi K2.6 scores higher in 8 categories and MiniMax-M2.1 in 1 category; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Kimi K2.6 leads 39.6 to 15.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 87.2% for Kimi K2.6 and 11.2% for MiniMax-M2.1.
- MiniMax-M2.1 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.95 / $4 for Kimi K2.6.
- Kimi K2.6 accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 205K.
Side by side
| Kimi K2.6 | MiniMax-M2.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Moonshot AI | MiniMax |
| Noometry Index | 47.5 | 38.4 |
| Released | 2026-04-20 | 2025-12-23 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 262K | 205K |
| Max output | 262K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.95 | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4 | $1.20 |
| Results tracked | 51 | 22 |
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), MiniMax-M2.1: 40.1 (#132)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1509 | 1384 |
| LMArena Coding | 1488 | 1421 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,093 | 623.83 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 76.7% | — |
| SciCode | 53.5% | — |
| WeirdML | 55.9% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use MiniMax-M2.1 leads
Kimi K2.6: 21.8 (#128), MiniMax-M2.1: 27.7 (#91)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 36.6% |
| 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), MiniMax-M2.1: 15.8 (#301)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 87.2% | 11.2% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1470 | 1410 |
| CritPt | 8% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 26% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 2.4% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 18% | — |
| DTBench | 90.9% | — |
| LMCA | 37.3% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.03 | — |
Math Kimi K2.6 leads
Kimi K2.6: 56.8 (#34), MiniMax-M2.1: 35.6 (#142)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1475 | 1396 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 57.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 25.6% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 72.9% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 96.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 16% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 39% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 14.6% | — |
Knowledge Kimi K2.6 leads
Kimi K2.6: 53.9 (#48), MiniMax-M2.1: 37.7 (#143)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.8% | 11.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1491 | 1432 |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.8% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34.9% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Kimi K2.6: 31.8 (#95), MiniMax-M2.1: —
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| 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), MiniMax-M2.1: 50.2 (#123)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1446 | 1378 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1521 | 1430 |
| LMArena French | 1471 | 1405 |
| LMArena German | 1449 | 1380 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1442 | 1287 |
| LMArena Korean | 1428 | 1297 |
| LMArena Russian | 1446 | 1386 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1463 | 1396 |
Instruction Following Kimi K2.6 leads
Kimi K2.6: 76.5 (#40), MiniMax-M2.1: 74.0 (#108)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | 1399 |
Long Context Kimi K2.6 leads
Kimi K2.6: 44.9 (#50), MiniMax-M2.1: 43.2 (#98)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1468 | 1416 |
Writing & Preference Kimi K2.6 leads
Kimi K2.6: 68.7 (#25), MiniMax-M2.1: 58.5 (#114)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | MiniMax-M2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1455 | 1392 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1434 | 1362 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1453 | 1396 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1725 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1202 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Kimi K2.6 better than MiniMax-M2.1?
Kimi K2.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index. MiniMax-M2.1 costs 3.3× 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 MiniMax-M2.1?
MiniMax-M2.1 is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 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 MiniMax-M2.1 better for coding?
Kimi K2.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 40.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Kimi K2.6 does, with 262K tokens against 205K.
How many benchmarks do Kimi K2.6 and MiniMax-M2.1 share?
21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Kimi K2.6 has 51 scored results on Noometry and MiniMax-M2.1 has 22.