Noometry

Model comparison

Kimi K2.6 vs Qwen-14B

Kimi K2.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.7 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

Kimi K2.6 Moonshot AI

47.7

Rank #60 Confirmed

Qwen-14B Alibaba (Qwen)

31.4

Rank #275 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Kimi K2.6 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen-14B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Kimi K2.6 leads 68.5 to 27.6.

Side by side

Kimi K2.6Qwen-14B
ProviderMoonshot AIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index47.731.4
Released2026-04-202023-09-24
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window262K—
Max output262K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.95—
Output $ / M tokens$4—
Results tracked5118

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

Category by category

Coding Kimi K2.6 leads

Kimi K2.6: 50.7 (#43), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#288)

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen-14B
LMArena Coding14881071
SWE-bench Verified76.7%—
LMArena WebDev1509—
SciCode53.5%—
WeirdML55.9%—
ALE-Bench1,093—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Kimi K2.6: 21.9 (#137), Qwen-14B: —

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen-14B
OSWorld 2.04.6%—
ExploitBench18.4%—
GBAEval0.9%—
GDP.pdf12%—
Vending-Bench 26,205—

Reasoning Kimi K2.6 leads

Kimi K2.6: 40.5 (#55), Qwen-14B: 19.6 (#257)

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen-14B
LMArena Hard Prompts14701027
Epoch Capabilities Index151.05113.03
NYT Connections (extended)87.2%—
CritPt8%—
Chess Puzzles26%—
EBR-Bench2.4%—
Mystery Game Puzzles18%—
DTBench90.9%—
LMCA37.3%—
BIG-Bench Hard—55%
LAMBADA—71.1%
PIQA—79.9%

Math Kimi K2.6 leads

Kimi K2.6: 57.0 (#41), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#227)

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen-14B
LMArena Math14751068
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)57.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 425.6%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions72.9%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202596.1%—
ProofBench16%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)39%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)14.6%—
GSM8K—61.3%

Knowledge Not comparable

Kimi K2.6: 54.0 (#54), Qwen-14B: —

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen-14B
GPQA Diamond90.8%—
SimpleQA Verified34.9%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.8%—
LMArena Expert1491—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—84.4%
BoolQ—86.2%
MMLU—66.3%

Multimodal Not comparable

Kimi K2.6: 31.6 (#103), Qwen-14B: —

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen-14B
LMArena Vision1283—
Blueprint-Bench 23.9%—
Furniture Assembly21.7%—
LMArena Document1451—

Multilingual Kimi K2.6 leads

Kimi K2.6: 54.9 (#37), Qwen-14B: 27.5 (#275)

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen-14B
LMArena Non-English14461041
LMArena Chinese15211077
LMArena French1471—
LMArena German1450—
LMArena Japanese1443—
LMArena Korean1427—
LMArena Russian1446—
LMArena Spanish1464—

Instruction Following Kimi K2.6 leads

Kimi K2.6: 76.3 (#43), Qwen-14B: 52.4 (#289)

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen-14B
LMArena Instruction Following14511031

Long Context Kimi K2.6 leads

Kimi K2.6: 44.9 (#52), Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#280)

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen-14B
LMArena Longer Query14681028

Writing & Preference Kimi K2.6 leads

Kimi K2.6: 68.5 (#26), Qwen-14B: 27.6 (#299)

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen-14B
LMArena Text14551051
LMArena Creative Writing14341028
LMArena Multi-Turn14531022
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1725—
EQ-Bench 41202—

Frequently asked questions

Is Kimi K2.6 better than Qwen-14B?

Kimi K2.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.7 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Kimi K2.6 or Qwen-14B better for coding?

Kimi K2.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.7 versus 31.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Kimi K2.6 and Qwen-14B share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Kimi K2.6 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.

Related comparisons

Go deeper