Noometry

Model comparison

Kimi K2.6 vs Qwen1.5-14B

Kimi K2.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.7 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

Kimi K2.6 Moonshot AI

47.7

Rank #60 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-14B Alibaba (Qwen)

32.7

Rank #253 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Kimi K2.6 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-14B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Kimi K2.6 leads 68.5 to 33.6.

Side by side

Kimi K2.6Qwen1.5-14B
ProviderMoonshot AIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index47.732.7
Released2026-04-202024-02-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window262K—
Max output262K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.95—
Output $ / M tokens$4—
Results tracked5117

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), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.1 (#263)

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Coding14881138
SWE-bench Verified76.7%—
LMArena WebDev1509—
SciCode53.5%—
WeirdML55.9%—
ALE-Bench1,093—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Kimi K2.6: 21.9 (#137), Qwen1.5-14B: —

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen1.5-14B
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), Qwen1.5-14B: 21.4 (#223)

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Hard Prompts14701113
NYT Connections (extended)87.2%—
CritPt8%—
Chess Puzzles26%—
EBR-Bench2.4%—
Mystery Game Puzzles18%—
DTBench90.9%—
LMCA37.3%—
Epoch Capabilities Index151.05—

Math Kimi K2.6 leads

Kimi K2.6: 57.0 (#41), Qwen1.5-14B: 32.4 (#215)

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Math14751125
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%—

Knowledge Kimi K2.6 leads

Kimi K2.6: 54.0 (#54), Qwen1.5-14B: 29.8 (#232)

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Expert14911094
GPQA Diamond90.8%—
SimpleQA Verified34.9%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.8%—
MMLU—68.6%

Multimodal Not comparable

Kimi K2.6: 31.6 (#103), Qwen1.5-14B: —

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Vision1283—
Blueprint-Bench 23.9%—
Furniture Assembly21.7%—
LMArena Document1451—

Multilingual Kimi K2.6 leads

Kimi K2.6: 54.9 (#37), Qwen1.5-14B: 30.7 (#262)

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Non-English14461095
LMArena Chinese15211147
LMArena French14711116
LMArena German14501043
LMArena Japanese14431019
LMArena Russian14461046
LMArena Spanish14641085
LMArena Korean1427—

Instruction Following Kimi K2.6 leads

Kimi K2.6: 76.3 (#43), Qwen1.5-14B: 56.8 (#271)

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Instruction Following14511102

Long Context Kimi K2.6 leads

Kimi K2.6: 44.9 (#52), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#257)

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Longer Query14681113

Writing & Preference Kimi K2.6 leads

Kimi K2.6: 68.5 (#26), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.6 (#276)

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Text14551128
LMArena Creative Writing14341091
LMArena Multi-Turn14531110
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1725—
EQ-Bench 41202—

Frequently asked questions

Is Kimi K2.6 better than Qwen1.5-14B?

Kimi K2.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.7 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is Kimi K2.6 or Qwen1.5-14B better for coding?

Kimi K2.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.7 versus 33.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Kimi K2.6 and Qwen1.5-14B share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Kimi K2.6 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-14B has 17.

Related comparisons

Go deeper