Model comparison
Kimi K2.6 vs Qwen3.6 35B-A3B
Kimi K2.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.7 to 37.6 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 35B-A3B costs 3.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Kimi K2.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Kimi K2.6 scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B in 1 category; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Kimi K2.6 leads 57.0 to 38.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 87.2% for Kimi K2.6 and 41.6% for Qwen3.6 35B-A3B.
- Qwen3.6 35B-A3B is cheaper at $0.25 / $1.49 per million input/output tokens, against $0.95 / $4 for Kimi K2.6.
Side by side
| Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Moonshot AI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 47.7 | 37.6 |
| Released | 2026-04-20 | 2026-04-01 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 262K | 262K |
| Max output | 262K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.95 | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4 | $1.49 |
| Results tracked | 51 | 14 |
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), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 37.2 (#196)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 53.5% | 35.8% |
| WeirdML | 55.9% | 34.5% |
| SWE-bench Verified | 76.7% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1509 | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1488 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,093 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Too close to call
Kimi K2.6: 21.9 (#137), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 22.1 (#134)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 23% |
| 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: 40.5 (#55), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 28.0 (#109)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 87.2% | 41.6% |
| CritPt | 8% | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | 26% | 26% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 18% | 22% |
| DTBench | 90.9% | 73.9% |
| LMCA | 37.3% | 29.7% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.05 | 143.93 |
| EBR-Bench | 2.4% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1470 | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 44.4% |
Math Kimi K2.6 leads
Kimi K2.6: 57.0 (#41), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 38.9 (#121)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 57.2% | 20.4% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 96.1% | 86.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 25.6% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 72.9% | — |
| ProofBench | 16% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1475 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 39% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 14.6% | — |
Knowledge Kimi K2.6 leads
Kimi K2.6: 54.0 (#54), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 51.3 (#68)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.8% | 84.8% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34.9% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.8% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1491 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Kimi K2.6: 31.6 (#103), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1283 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 3.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 21.7% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1451 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Kimi K2.6: 54.9 (#37), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1446 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1521 | — |
| LMArena French | 1471 | — |
| LMArena German | 1450 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1443 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1427 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1446 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1464 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Kimi K2.6: 76.3 (#43), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Kimi K2.6: 44.9 (#52), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1468 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Kimi K2.6: 68.5 (#26), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1455 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1434 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1725 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1202 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1453 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Kimi K2.6 better than Qwen3.6 35B-A3B?
Kimi K2.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.7 to 37.6 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 35B-A3B costs 3.1× 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 Qwen3.6 35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6 35B-A3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $1.49 per million output tokens; Kimi K2.6 lists at $0.95 and $4.
Is Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.6 35B-A3B better for coding?
Kimi K2.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.7 versus 37.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 262K tokens.
How many benchmarks do Kimi K2.6 and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Kimi K2.6 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B has 14.