Model comparison
Kimi K2.6 vs Qwen3.5-Flash
Kimi K2.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.7 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 9.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Kimi K2.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 32 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 32 benchmarks with published results for both. Kimi K2.6 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Kimi K2.6 leads 57.0 to 37.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 57.2% for Kimi K2.6 and 18.2% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.95 / $4 for Kimi K2.6.
- Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
- Kimi K2.6 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Moonshot AI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 47.7 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2026-04-20 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 262K | 1M |
| Max output | 262K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.95 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 51 | 32 |
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), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1509 | 1244 |
| LMArena Coding | 1488 | 1412 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,093 | 221.8 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 76.7% | — |
| SciCode | 53.5% | — |
| WeirdML | 55.9% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Kimi K2.6: 21.9 (#137), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 6,205 | 462.69 |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 4.6% | — |
| ExploitBench | 18.4% | — |
| GBAEval | 0.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 12% | — |
Reasoning Kimi K2.6 leads
Kimi K2.6: 40.5 (#55), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 26% | 21% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1470 | 1403 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 18% | 20% |
| DTBench | 90.9% | 82.9% |
| LMCA | 37.3% | 29.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.05 | 143.98 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 87.2% | — |
| CritPt | 8% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 2.4% | — |
Math Kimi K2.6 leads
Kimi K2.6: 57.0 (#41), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 57.2% | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 96.1% | 84.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1475 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 39% | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 14.6% | 0% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 25.6% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 72.9% | — |
| ProofBench | 16% | — |
Knowledge Kimi K2.6 leads
Kimi K2.6: 54.0 (#54), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.8% | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34.9% | 20.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.8% | 10.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1491 | 1407 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Kimi K2.6: 31.6 (#103), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1283 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 3.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 21.7% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1451 | — |
Multilingual Kimi K2.6 leads
Kimi K2.6: 54.9 (#37), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1446 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1521 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1471 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1450 | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1443 | 1368 |
| LMArena Korean | 1427 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1446 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1464 | 1400 |
Instruction Following Kimi K2.6 leads
Kimi K2.6: 76.3 (#43), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | 1374 |
Long Context Kimi K2.6 leads
Kimi K2.6: 44.9 (#52), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1468 | 1392 |
Writing & Preference Kimi K2.6 leads
Kimi K2.6: 68.5 (#26), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1455 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1434 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1453 | 1393 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1725 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1202 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Kimi K2.6 better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
Kimi K2.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.7 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 9.8× 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 Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Kimi K2.6 lists at $0.95 and $4.
Is Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
Kimi K2.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.7 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do Kimi K2.6 and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
32 benchmarks have published results for both models. Kimi K2.6 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.