Model comparison
Kimi K2.5 vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Head-to-head evidence from 49 shared benchmark results across 8 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Kimi K2.5 #54 (Supported); Qwen3.6 Plus #30 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Kimi K2.5 and Qwen3.6 Plus share 49 comparable benchmark results. 8 of 8 categories are comparable. 14 results are unique to Kimi K2.5; 11 to Qwen3.6 Plus.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 49
- Kimi K2.5 only
- 14
- Qwen3.6 Plus only
- 11
- Comparable categories
- 8 / 8
Pick Qwen3.6 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Kimi K2.5 only becomes the better choice if instruction following is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Why this result
Qwen3.6 Plus is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 65.2 to 59.66. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.6 Plus's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 70.3 against 59.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 50.8% to 61.6%. Kimi K2.5 does hit back in instruction following, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen3.6 Plus 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. Qwen3.6 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Kimi K2.5.
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 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inst. Following | Kimi K2.593.9 | Margin← 11.6 | Qwen3.6 Plus82.3 |
| Coding | Kimi K2.559.4 | Margin→ 10.9 | Qwen3.6 Plus70.3 |
| Agentic | Kimi K2.555.0 | Margin→ 6.6 | Qwen3.6 Plus61.6 |
| Multilingual | Kimi K2.582.3 | Margin→ 2.4 | Qwen3.6 Plus84.7 |
| Multimodal | Kimi K2.578.5 | Margin→ 1.3 | Qwen3.6 Plus79.8 |
| Reasoning | Kimi K2.561.0 | Margin→ 1.0 | Qwen3.6 Plus62.0 |
| Knowledge | Kimi K2.556.9 | Margin→ 0.2 | Qwen3.6 Plus57.1 |
| Math | Kimi K2.560.6 | Margin← 0.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus60.5 |
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 61.6%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 10.8Terminal-Bench 2.0: Kimi K2.5 scored 50.8%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 61.6%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 50.7%B 56.6%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 5.9SWE-bench Pro: Kimi K2.5 scored 50.7%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 56.6%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 4.200%B 8.333%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 4.1FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Kimi K2.5 scored 4.200%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 8.333%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 87.6%B 90.4%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 2.8GPQA: Kimi K2.5 scored 87.6%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 90.4%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMLU-ProX
MultilingualA 82.3%B 84.7%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 2.4MMLU-ProX: Kimi K2.5 scored 82.3%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 84.7%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Kimi K2.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Kimi K2.5$0.6 input / $3 output | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Kimi K2.545 tok/s | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Kimi K2.52.38 s | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Kimi K2.5256K | Qwen3.6 Plus1M | Qwen3.6 Plus lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticQwen3.6 Plus wins20 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 50.8% | 61.6% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 60.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 52.3% | 58.8% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| QwenClawBenchSource | 54.3% | 57.2% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 65.7% | 70.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| DeepSearchQASource | 77.1% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | 14.4% | 41.5% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| ToolathlonSource | 27.8% | 39.8% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| MCP AtlasSource | 29.5% | 48.2% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| MCP-TasksSource | 59.1% | 74.1% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| WideResearchSource | 72.7% | 74.3% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95.9% | 97.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 11.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 45.88% | 50.60% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 14.0% | 18.0% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| JobBenchSource | 8.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 21.7% | 27.6% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 25.4% | 31.8% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1009 | 1135 | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 44.3% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.6 Plus wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 76.8% | 78.8% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | 70.8% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | 85.0% | 87.1% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 50.7% | 56.6% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 73% | 73.8% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 58.5% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 77.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | 48.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 49.0% | 40.7% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 46.8% | 54.5% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 25.56% | Not comparable |
ReasoningQwen3.6 Plus wins4 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen3.6 Plus wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 87.6% | 90.4% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 87.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 69.2% | 71.6% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 87.1% | 88.5% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | 87.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 30.1% | 28.8% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 35.4% | 39.6% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 87.9% | 88.2% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-HLESource | 29.4% | 25.7% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -8.1% | 2.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 34.3% | 26.2% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 64.6% | 32.0% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.5% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93.3% | Not comparable |
MathKimi K2.5 wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME 2025Source | 96.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | 95.8% | 95.3% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| AIME25 (Arcee)Source | 96.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | 95.4% | 96.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | 91.1% | 94.6% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 87.1% | 87.8% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | 81.8% | 83.8% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 27.900% | 26.207% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 4.200% | 8.333% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
MultilingualQwen3.6 Plus wins2 benchmarks
MultimodalQwen3.6 Plus wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 78.5% | 78.8% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| Video-MMESource | 87.4% | — | Not comparable |
| MMVUSource | 80.4% | — | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | 86.6% | 84.0% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 75.4% | 78.0% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1279 | 1249 | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| MMMUSource | — | 86.0% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 88.0% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 68.2% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 81.5% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 96.9% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (9)
Which is better, Kimi K2.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.2 to 59.66. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 50.8% and 61.6%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Kimi K2.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 57.1 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 Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.3 versus 59.4. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Kimi K2.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Kimi K2.5 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 60.6 versus 60.5. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for reasoning, Kimi K2.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 62 versus 61. Inside this category, AA-LCR is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Kimi K2.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 61.6 versus 55. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Kimi K2.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79.8 versus 78.5. Inside this category, Design Arena Website is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for instruction following, Kimi K2.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Kimi K2.5 has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 93.9 versus 82.3. Inside this category, AA-IFBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multilingual tasks, Kimi K2.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for multilingual tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.7 versus 82.3. Inside this category, MMLU-ProX 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.