Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersThe learned values that shape how a model responds. B means billion and T means trillion. For mixture-of-experts models, the total count is larger than the number active for each token. Parameter count alone does not measure quality. | 1T | — |
Context windowHow much information the model can work with in one request, measured in tokens — pieces of words or other data. This includes your question, attachments, conversation and reply. Limits can vary by model variant and provider. | 256k | 400k |
| 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 every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $0.4323Baidu | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $1.82Baidu | — |
| $177Baidu · fp4 | — | |
| 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% | 39% |
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% | — |
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% | — |
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% | — |
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% | — |
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 | OpenAI |
| Release date | Apr 21 2026 | Sep 15 2025 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Kimi K2.6vsClaude Haiku 5.5GPT-5-CodexvsClaude Haiku 5.5Kimi K2.6vsGemini 4 ArgonGPT-5-CodexvsGemini 4 ArgonKimi K2.6vsMuse Spark OpenGPT-5-CodexvsMuse Spark OpenKimi K2.6vsGrok 4.7GPT-5-CodexvsGrok 4.7Kimi K2.6vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-5-CodexvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Kimi K2.6vsMistral Large 4GPT-5-CodexvsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Kimi K2.6 leads GPT-5-Codex on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (BullshitBench v2). 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 GPT-5-Codex. GPT-5-Codex shipped 218 days before Kimi K2.6, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 256k (Kimi K2.6) vs 400k (GPT-5-Codex). Kimi K2.6 is open weight, while GPT-5-Codex is closed.
On BullshitBench v2, Kimi K2.6 leads at 65% vs GPT-5-Codex at 39%.