Model comparison
Grok 4.5 vs Kimi K2.6
Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Grok 4.5 #7 (Supported); Kimi K2.6 #74 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Grok 4.5 and Kimi K2.6 share 19 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 9 results are unique to Grok 4.5; 32 to Kimi K2.6.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 19
- Grok 4.5 only
- 9
- Kimi K2.6 only
- 32
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Grok 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Kimi K2.6 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 19 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Grok 4.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 76.72 to 56.79. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Grok 4.5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 83.3 against 73.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 83.3% to 66.7%.
Grok 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $6.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.95 input / $4.00 output per 1M tokens for Kimi K2.6. Grok 4.5 gives you the larger context window at 500K, compared with 256K for Kimi K2.6.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Grok 4.5 | Δ | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Grok 4.583.3 | Margin← 9.8 | Kimi K2.673.5 |
| Coding | Grok 4.564.7 | Margin← 0.3 | Kimi K2.664.4 |
| Knowledge | Grok 4.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.642.2 |
| Math | Grok 4.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.667.1 |
| Multimodal | Grok 4.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.679.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 83.3%B 66.7%Winner: Grok 4.5Δ 16.6Terminal-Bench 2.0: Grok 4.5 scored 83.3%; Kimi K2.6 scored 66.7%. Grok 4.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 64.7%B 58.6%Winner: Grok 4.5Δ 6.1SWE-bench Pro: Grok 4.5 scored 64.7%; Kimi K2.6 scored 58.6%. Grok 4.5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Grok 4.5 | Kimi K2.6 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Grok 4.5$2 input / $6 output | Kimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 output | Kimi K2.6 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Grok 4.5Not available | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Grok 4.5Not available | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Grok 4.5500K | Kimi K2.6256K | Grok 4.5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGrok 4.5 wins24 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 83.3% | 66.7% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| deepSweSource | 53% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 45.7% | 30.3% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 51.7% | 34.5% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1535 | 1189 | Grok 4.5 leads |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1323 | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 51.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 40.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 92.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 32.6% | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 81.6% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 83.2% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 73.1% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 50% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 55.9% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 92.5% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 95.9% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 28.5% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 56.82% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 18.0% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 4.6% | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | — | 43.9% | Not comparable |
CodingGrok 4.5 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench ProSource | 64.7% | 58.6% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 78% | 76.7% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 83.3% | 66.7% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| cursorBench32Source | 66.7% | — | Not comparable |
| VulcanBench v3Source | 91.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 72.5% | 61.8% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 54.1% | 53.5% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 80.2% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 89.6% | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 52.2% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 37.89% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | — | 47.6% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 53.8% | 44.2% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 93.1% | 91.1% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 40.3% | 35.9% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 26.4% | 6.4% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 52.1% | 32.8% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 53.5% | 39.3% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 90.5% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 90.5% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 34.7% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multimodal7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 80.4% | 79.4% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1325 | 1306 | Grok 4.5 leads |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 79.4% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource | — | 80.1% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 87.4% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 96.9% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 76.0% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Grok 4.5 or Kimi K2.6?
Grok 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 76.72 to 56.79. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 83.3% and 66.7%.
Which is better for coding, Grok 4.5 or Kimi K2.6?
Grok 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 64.7 versus 64.4. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Grok 4.5 or Kimi K2.6?
Grok 4.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 83.3 versus 73.5. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.