Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Kimi K2.6 vs Qwen3.7 Max

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 31 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

Kimi K2.6
Moonshot AI
56.79/100
Margin
16.1pts
winning →
72.84/100
1 category wins3 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Kimi K2.6 #74 (Estimated); Qwen3.7 Max #10 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Kimi K2.6 and Qwen3.7 Max share 31 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 20 results are unique to Kimi K2.6; 27 to Qwen3.7 Max.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
31
Kimi K2.6 only
20
Qwen3.7 Max only
27
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick Qwen3.7 Max if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Kimi K2.6 only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 31 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 4 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Qwen3.7 Max is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 72.84 to 56.79. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.7 Max's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 97.1 against 67.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 34.7% to 41.4%. Kimi K2.6 does hit back in agentic, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Qwen3.7 Max gives you the larger context window at 1M, 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 scores and score margins for Kimi K2.6 and Qwen3.7 Max
CategoryKimi K2.6ΔQwen3.7 Max
MathKimi K2.667.1Margin→ 30.0Qwen3.7 Max97.1
KnowledgeKimi K2.642.2Margin→ 22.0Qwen3.7 Max64.2
CodingKimi K2.664.4Margin→ 13.5Qwen3.7 Max77.9
AgenticKimi K2.673.5Margin← 3.8Qwen3.7 Max69.7
ReasoningKimi K2.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max90.4
MultilingualKimi K2.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max87.0
MultimodalKimi K2.679.8MarginNo overlapQwen3.7 MaxNot measured
Inst. FollowingKimi K2.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max84.4

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Kimi K2.6B · Qwen3.7 Max

  1. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 34.7%B 41.4%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 6.7
    HLE: Kimi K2.6 scored 34.7%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 41.4%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

  2. HMMT Feb 2026

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 92.7%B 97.1%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 4.4
    HMMT Feb 2026: Kimi K2.6 scored 92.7%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 97.1%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

  3. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 66.7%B 69.7%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 3
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Kimi K2.6 scored 66.7%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 69.7%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

  4. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 58.6%B 60.6%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 2
    SWE-bench Pro: Kimi K2.6 scored 58.6%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 60.6%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

  5. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 90.5%B 92.4%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 1.9
    GPQA: Kimi K2.6 scored 90.5%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 92.4%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricKimi K2.6Qwen3.7 MaxComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensKimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 outputQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondKimi K2.6Not availableQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenKimi K2.6Not availableQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensKimi K2.6256KQwen3.7 Max1MQwen3.7 Max lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticKimi K2.6 wins
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen3.7 MaxResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 66.7%69.7%Qwen3.7 Max leads
BrowseCompSource 83.2%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 73.1%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 50%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 55.9%76.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
Claw-EvalSource 62.3%65.2%Qwen3.7 Max leads
DeepSearchQASource 92.5%—Not comparable
WideResearchSource 80.8%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 30.3%30.6%Qwen3.7 Max leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 95.9%94.7%Kimi K2.6 leads
GDPval-AASource 34.5%38.7%Qwen3.7 Max leads
GDPval-AASource 11891273Qwen3.7 Max leads
APEX-Agents-AASource 28.5%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 56.82%64.27%Qwen3.7 Max leads
ResearchClawBenchSource 18.0%18.7%Qwen3.7 Max leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 4.6%—Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource 43.9%50.8%Qwen3.7 Max leads
QwenClawBenchSource —64.3%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1568Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —75.0%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —47.9%Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource —53.5%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —908Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource —25.6%Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —45.0%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —42.5%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source —74.5%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —83.4%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.7 Max wins
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen3.7 MaxResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.2%80.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
LiveCodeBench v6Source 89.6%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 58.6%60.6%Qwen3.7 Max leads
SWE MultilingualSource 76.7%78.3%Qwen3.7 Max leads
SciCodeSource 52.2%53.5%Qwen3.7 Max leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 66.7%69.7%Qwen3.7 Max leads
Vibe Code BenchSource 37.89%—Not comparable
cursorBench31Source 47.6%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 61.8%66.0%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-SciCodeSource 53.5%48.8%Kimi K2.6 leads
NL2RepoSource —47.2%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —91.6%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen3.7 MaxResult
AA-LCRSource 69.7%69.0%Kimi K2.6 leads
CritPtSource 8.0%13.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
MRCRv2Source —90.4%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3.7 Max wins
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen3.7 MaxResult
GPQASource 90.5%92.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
GPQA-DSource 90.5%92.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
HLESource 34.7%41.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 44.2%46.0%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.1%92.3%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-HLESource 35.9%38.1%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 6.4%14.1%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 32.8%30.1%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 39.3%22.9%Qwen3.7 Max leads
MMLU-ProSource —89.6%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —95%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —73.6%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —90.3%Not comparable
MathQwen3.7 Max wins
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen3.7 MaxResult
AIME26Source 96.4%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 92.7%97.1%Qwen3.7 Max leads
MMAnswerBenchSource 86.0%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 38.966%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 14.580%—Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —90.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —44.5%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen3.7 MaxResult
MMLU-ProXSource —87%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —59.0%Not comparable
INCLUDESource —86.2%Not comparable
MAXIFESource —89.2%Not comparable
PolyMathSource —86.5%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen3.7 MaxResult
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
AA-MMMU-ProSource 79.4%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13061293Kimi K2.6 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkKimi K2.6Qwen3.7 MaxResult
AA-IFBenchSource 76.0%80.5%Qwen3.7 Max leads
IFEvalSource —94.3%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 72.84 to 56.79. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 34.7% and 41.4%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 64.2 versus 42.2. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.9 versus 64.4. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 versus 67.1. Inside this category, HMMT Feb 2026 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Kimi K2.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.5 versus 69.7. 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.

Kimi K2.6
API / mo$3,713
Self-host / mo$18,221
Break-even326M/day
Qwen3.7 Max
API / mo$0
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Model the full break-even

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Moonshot AI Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

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.