Noometry

Model comparison

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.3 to 45.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo Moonshot AI

45.4

Rank #63 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

47.3

Rank #54 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.6 Plus in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Plus leads 56.1 to 50.9.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 83.1% for Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo and 93.3% for Qwen3.6 Plus.
  • Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Kimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.6 Plus
ProviderMoonshot AIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index45.447.3
Released2025-11-062026-03-31
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.50
Output $ / M tokens—$3
Results tracked2137

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 38.1 (#166), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.6 (#125)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena WebDev13221461
LMArena Coding14541467
SWE-bench Verified—57.9%
SciCode—40.7%
ALE-Bench—670.15

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: —, Qwen3.6 Plus: —

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.6 Plus
Vending-Bench 2—5,115

Reasoning Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 31.4 (#72), Qwen3.6 Plus: 28.5 (#89)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.6 Plus
Chess Puzzles20%17%
LMArena Hard Prompts14281449
NYT Connections (extended)—60.3%
CritPt—2.9%
Thematic Generalization—59.5%
Mystery Game Puzzles—12%
DTBench—81.9%
LMCA—33.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index—147.67

Math Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 45.5 (#62), Qwen3.6 Plus: 50.6 (#44)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.6 Plus
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202583.1%93.3%
LMArena Math14291450
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—38.2%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—26.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—8.3%

Knowledge Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 50.9 (#64), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#40)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.6 Plus
GPQA Diamond84.2%88.4%
LMArena Expert14391456
SimpleQA Verified—44.1%

Multilingual Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 51.6 (#104), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.5 (#66)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Non-English13981424
LMArena Chinese14571478
LMArena French14251454
LMArena German13901451
LMArena Japanese13561389
LMArena Korean13291381
LMArena Russian13901434
LMArena Spanish14071432

Instruction Following Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 74.2 (#103), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.2 (#70)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following14031425

Long Context Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 43.2 (#99), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.1 (#48)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Longer Query14151440
CL-bench—20.3%

Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 60.2 (#99), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.4 (#78)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text14151437
LMArena Creative Writing13731405
LMArena Multi-Turn14141438

Frequently asked questions

Is Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo better than Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.3 to 45.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?

Qwen3.6 Plus scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.6 versus 38.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo and Qwen3.6 Plus share?

21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.

Related comparisons

Go deeper