Model comparison
Kimi K2.6 vs Trinity Large Thinking
Kimi K2.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.7 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 4.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Kimi K2.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.
Arcee AISummary
- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Kimi K2.6 scores higher in 8 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Kimi K2.6 leads 40.5 to 16.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 87.2% for Kimi K2.6 and 16.5% for Trinity Large Thinking.
- Trinity Large Thinking is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.80 per million input/output tokens, against $0.95 / $4 for Kimi K2.6.
Side by side
| Kimi K2.6 | Trinity Large Thinking | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Moonshot AI | Arcee AI |
| Noometry Index | 47.7 | 38.6 |
| Released | 2026-04-20 | 2026-04-01 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 262K | 262K |
| Max output | 262K | 80K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.95 | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4 | $0.80 |
| Results tracked | 51 | 24 |
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), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1509 | 1238 |
| SciCode | 53.5% | 36.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1488 | 1381 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 76.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 55.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,093 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Kimi K2.6: 21.9 (#137), Trinity Large Thinking: —
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 87.2% | 16.5% |
| CritPt | 8% | 0.9% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1470 | 1350 |
| Chess Puzzles | 26% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| EBR-Bench | 2.4% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 18% | — |
| DTBench | 90.9% | — |
| LMCA | 37.3% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.05 | — |
Math Kimi K2.6 leads
Kimi K2.6: 57.0 (#41), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1475 | 1366 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 57.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 25.6% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 72.9% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 96.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 16% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 39% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 14.6% | — |
Knowledge Kimi K2.6 leads
Kimi K2.6: 54.0 (#54), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.8% | 6.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1491 | 1360 |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.8% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34.9% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Kimi K2.6: 31.6 (#103), Trinity Large Thinking: —
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1446 | 1325 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1521 | 1373 |
| LMArena French | 1471 | 1374 |
| LMArena German | 1450 | 1356 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1443 | 1311 |
| LMArena Korean | 1427 | 1306 |
| LMArena Russian | 1446 | 1337 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1464 | 1357 |
Instruction Following Kimi K2.6 leads
Kimi K2.6: 76.3 (#43), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | 1334 |
Long Context Kimi K2.6 leads
Kimi K2.6: 44.9 (#52), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1468 | 1355 |
Writing & Preference Kimi K2.6 leads
Kimi K2.6: 68.5 (#26), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1455 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1434 | 1320 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1453 | 1342 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1725 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1202 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Kimi K2.6 better than Trinity Large Thinking?
Kimi K2.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.7 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 4.4× 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 Trinity Large Thinking?
Trinity Large Thinking is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.80 per million output tokens; Kimi K2.6 lists at $0.95 and $4.
Is Kimi K2.6 or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?
Kimi K2.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.7 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 262K tokens.
How many benchmarks do Kimi K2.6 and Trinity Large Thinking share?
22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Kimi K2.6 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.