# Kimi K2.6 vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think

> Kimi K2.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.7 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/kimi-k2-6-vs-olmo-3-1-32b-think
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 15

## Summary

- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Kimi K2.6 scores higher in 8 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Kimi K2.6 leads 68.5 to 46.2.

## Snapshot

| | Kimi K2.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Moonshot AI | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 47.7 | 37.9 |
| Rank | 60 | 191 |
| Context | 262K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.95 | — |
| Output $/M | $4 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Kimi K2.6: 50.7 (#43)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)

| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1488 | 1291 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 76.7% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1509 | — |
| SciCode | 53.5% | — |
| WeirdML | 55.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,093 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Kimi K2.6: 21.9 (#137)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| OSWorld 2.0 | 4.6% | — |
| ExploitBench | 18.4% | — |
| GBAEval | 0.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 12% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 6,205 | — |

## Reasoning

- Kimi K2.6: 40.5 (#55)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)

| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1470 | 1272 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 87.2% | — |
| CritPt | 8% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 26% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 2.4% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 18% | — |
| DTBench | 90.9% | — |
| LMCA | 37.3% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.05 | — |

## Math

- Kimi K2.6: 57.0 (#41)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)

| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1475 | 1305 |
| 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: 54.0 (#54)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)

| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1491 | 1295 |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.8% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34.9% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.8% | — |

## Multimodal

- Kimi K2.6: 31.6 (#103)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1283 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 3.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 21.7% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1451 | — |

## Multilingual

- Kimi K2.6: 54.9 (#37)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)

| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1446 | 1209 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1521 | 1242 |
| LMArena French | 1471 | 1260 |
| LMArena German | 1450 | 1262 |
| LMArena Russian | 1446 | 1193 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1464 | 1289 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1443 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1427 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Kimi K2.6: 76.3 (#43)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)

| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | 1247 |

## Long Context

- Kimi K2.6: 44.9 (#52)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)

| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1468 | 1272 |

## Writing & Preference

- Kimi K2.6: 68.5 (#26)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)

| Benchmark | Kimi K2.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1455 | 1272 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1434 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1453 | 1252 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1725 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1202 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Kimi K2.6 better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?

Kimi K2.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.7 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Kimi K2.6 or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?

Kimi K2.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.7 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Kimi K2.6 and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Kimi K2.6 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.