Model comparison
Kimi K2.5 vs Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Kimi K2.5 #54 (Supported); Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) #53 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Kimi K2.5 and Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) share 18 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 45 results are unique to Kimi K2.5; 3 to Qwen 3.6 Max (preview).
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 18
- Kimi K2.5 only
- 45
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only
- 3
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Kimi K2.5 only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 shared benchmark results across 6 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
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 59.72 versus 59.66. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)'s sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 73.9 against 56.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 50.8% to 65.4%. Kimi K2.5 does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Kimi K2.5 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
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 | Kimi K2.5 | Δ | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Kimi K2.560.6 | Margin← 42.2 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)18.4 |
| Knowledge | Kimi K2.556.9 | Margin→ 17.0 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)73.9 |
| Agentic | Kimi K2.555.0 | Margin→ 10.4 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)65.4 |
| Coding | Kimi K2.559.4 | Margin← 8.4 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)51.0 |
| Reasoning | Kimi K2.561.0 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not measured |
| Multilingual | Kimi K2.582.3 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not measured |
| Multimodal | Kimi K2.578.5 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not measured |
| Inst. Following | Kimi K2.593.9 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 50.8%B 65.4%Winner: Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Δ 14.6Terminal-Bench 2.0: Kimi K2.5 scored 50.8%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 65.4%. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 50.7%B 57.3%Winner: Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Δ 6.6SWE-bench Pro: Kimi K2.5 scored 50.7%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 57.3%. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 27.900%B 23.103%Winner: Kimi K2.5Δ 4.8FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Kimi K2.5 scored 27.900%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 23.103%. Kimi K2.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SuperGPQA
KnowledgeA 69.2%B 73.9%Winner: Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Δ 4.7SuperGPQA: Kimi K2.5 scored 69.2%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 73.9%. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SciCode
CodingA 48.7%B 47%Winner: Kimi K2.5Δ 1.7SciCode: Kimi K2.5 scored 48.7%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 47%. Kimi K2.5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Kimi K2.5 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Kimi K2.5$0.6 input / $3 output | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Kimi K2.545 tok/s | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Kimi K2.52.38 s | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Kimi K2.5256K | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)256K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticQwen 3.6 Max (preview) wins20 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 50.8% | 65.4% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 60.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 52.3% | — | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | 54.3% | 59.0% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 65.7% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 77.1% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | 14.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 27.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 29.5% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | 59.1% | — | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | 72.7% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95.9% | 95.9% | Tie |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 11.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 45.88% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 14.0% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 8.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 21.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 25.4% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1009 | — | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1532 | Not comparable |
CodingKimi K2.5 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 76.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | 70.8% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | 85.0% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 50.7% | 57.3% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 73% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 58.5% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 77.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | 48.7% | 47% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 49.0% | 46.9% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 46.8% | — | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 42.9% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 65.4% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen 3.6 Max (preview) wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 87.6% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 87.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 69.2% | 73.9% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 87.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | 87.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 30.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 35.4% | 40.0% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 87.9% | 88.8% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 29.4% | 28.9% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -8.1% | 10.2% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 34.3% | 37.7% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 64.6% | 44.2% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
MathKimi K2.5 wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME 2025Source | 96.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | 95.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AIME25 (Arcee)Source | 96.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | 95.4% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | 91.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 87.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | 81.8% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 27.900% | 23.103% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 4.200% | 4.167% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal6 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, Kimi K2.5 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 59.72 to 59.66. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 50.8% and 65.4%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Kimi K2.5 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.9 versus 56.9. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Kimi K2.5 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
Kimi K2.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 59.4 versus 51. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Kimi K2.5 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
Kimi K2.5 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 60.6 versus 18.4. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Kimi K2.5 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.4 versus 55. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 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
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.