Kimi K2.6vsQwen2.5-Coder
Kimi K2.6 | Qwen2.5-Coder | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 32B |
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 | 128k |
| 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. | $0.3743Baidu | $0.66Cloudflare |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $1.576Baidu | $1.00Cloudflare |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
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% | — |
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 | Qwen |
| Release date | Apr 21 2026 | Nov 12 2024 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
Other comparisons
Kimi K2.6vsClaude Fable 5.1Qwen2.5-CodervsClaude Fable 5.1Kimi K2.6vsGPT-6 AstraQwen2.5-CodervsGPT-6 AstraKimi K2.6vsGemini 3.8 FlashQwen2.5-CodervsGemini 3.8 FlashKimi K2.6vsMuse Spark 1.3Qwen2.5-CodervsMuse Spark 1.3Kimi K2.6vsGrok 4.6Qwen2.5-CodervsGrok 4.6Kimi K2.6vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashQwen2.5-CodervsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
Frequently asked questions
Kimi K2.6 and Qwen2.5-Coder don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. 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 Qwen2.5-Coder. Qwen2.5-Coder shipped 525 days before Kimi K2.6, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Kimi K2.6 has 1T parameters, while Qwen2.5-Coder has 32B. Context windows are 256k (Kimi K2.6) vs 128k (Qwen2.5-Coder).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Kimi K2.6 and Qwen2.5-Coder don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.