Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | 1T | 30B |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | 256k | — |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $0.95 | — |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $4.00 | — |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | $0.16 | — |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $0.465Inceptron | $0.05Novita |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $2.40DigitalOcean | $0.20Novita |
| Benchmarks | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 65% | 28% |
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | 89.6% | 68.3% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 90.5% | 73% |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 80.2% | — |
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | 52% | — |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 83.2% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 34.7% | — |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 73.1% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Moonshot AI | NVIDIA |
| Release date | Apr 21 2026 | Dec 15 2025 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Source |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Kimi K2.6vsClaude Haiku 5.5Nemotron 3 NanovsClaude Haiku 5.5Kimi K2.6vsGPT-6.1 SolNemotron 3 NanovsGPT-6.1 SolKimi K2.6vsGemini 4 ArgonNemotron 3 NanovsGemini 4 ArgonKimi K2.6vsMuse Spark 1.3Nemotron 3 NanovsMuse Spark 1.3Kimi K2.6vsGrok 4.7Nemotron 3 NanovsGrok 4.7Kimi K2.6vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashNemotron 3 NanovsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashFrequently asked questions
Kimi K2.6 leads Nemotron 3 Nano on 3 of the 3 benchmarks they both report (BullshitBench v2, LiveCodeBench, GPQA Diamond). Only Kimi K2.6 has a verified first-party API price: $0.95 per million input tokens and $4.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Nemotron 3 Nano. Nemotron 3 Nano shipped 127 days before Kimi K2.6, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Kimi K2.6 has 1T parameters, while Nemotron 3 Nano has 30B. Kimi K2.6 is open weight, while Nemotron 3 Nano is open source.
On BullshitBench v2, Kimi K2.6 leads at 65% vs Nemotron 3 Nano at 28%. On LiveCodeBench, Kimi K2.6 leads at 89.6% vs Nemotron 3 Nano at 68.3%. On GPQA Diamond, Kimi K2.6 leads at 90.5% vs Nemotron 3 Nano at 73%.