Noometry

Model comparison

Kimi K2.6 vs Qwen1.5-32B

Kimi K2.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Kimi K2.6 Moonshot AI

47.5

Rank #52 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.0

Rank #288 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Kimi K2.6 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Kimi K2.6 leads 53.9 to 13.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 90.8% for Kimi K2.6 and 30.7% for Qwen1.5-32B.

Side by side

Kimi K2.6Qwen1.5-32B
ProviderMoonshot AIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index47.530.0
Released2026-04-202024-02-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window262K—
Max output262K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.95—
Output $ / M tokens$4—
Results tracked5121

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), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.1 (#278)

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Coding14881155
SWE-bench Verified76.7%—
LMArena WebDev1509—
SciCode53.5%—
WeirdML55.9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—32.3%
BigCodeBench Complete—42%
ALE-Bench1,093—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Kimi K2.6: 21.8 (#128), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen1.5-32B
OSWorld 2.04.6%—
ExploitBench18.4%—
GBAEval0.9%—
GDP.pdf12%—
Vending-Bench 26,205—

Reasoning Kimi K2.6 leads

Kimi K2.6: 39.6 (#51), Qwen1.5-32B: 20.9 (#210)

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14701131
NYT Connections (extended)87.2%—
CritPt8%—
Chess Puzzles26%—
EBR-Bench2.4%—
Mystery Game Puzzles18%—
DTBench90.9%—
LMCA37.3%—
Epoch Capabilities Index151.03—

Math Kimi K2.6 leads

Kimi K2.6: 56.8 (#34), Qwen1.5-32B: 30.5 (#207)

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Math14751155
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: 53.9 (#48), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#291)

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen1.5-32B
GPQA Diamond90.8%30.7%
LMArena Expert14911126
SimpleQA Verified34.9%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.8%—
MMLU—74.4%

Multimodal Not comparable

Kimi K2.6: 31.8 (#95), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Vision1282—
Blueprint-Bench 23.9%—
Furniture Assembly21.7%—
LMArena Document1451—

Multilingual Kimi K2.6 leads

Kimi K2.6: 55.1 (#35), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.6 (#254)

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Non-English14461106
LMArena Chinese15211176
LMArena French14711100
LMArena German14491058
LMArena Japanese14421027
LMArena Korean14281007
LMArena Russian14461073
LMArena Spanish14631089

Instruction Following Kimi K2.6 leads

Kimi K2.6: 76.5 (#40), Qwen1.5-32B: 58.0 (#260)

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Instruction Following14511116

Long Context Kimi K2.6 leads

Kimi K2.6: 44.9 (#50), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#241)

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Longer Query14681146

Writing & Preference Kimi K2.6 leads

Kimi K2.6: 68.7 (#25), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.4 (#266)

BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Text14551137
LMArena Creative Writing14341083
LMArena Multi-Turn14531140
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1725—
EQ-Bench 41202—

Frequently asked questions

Is Kimi K2.6 better than Qwen1.5-32B?

Kimi K2.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Is Kimi K2.6 or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?

Kimi K2.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 31.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Kimi K2.6 and Qwen1.5-32B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Kimi K2.6 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper