Model Comparison

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs Kimi K2.6

Kimi K2.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is 1.3x cheaper per token.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

12 benchmarks

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Kimi K2.6 is better at 12 benchmarks (AIME 2026, BrowseComp, GPQA, Humanity's Last Exam, IMO-AnswerBench, LiveCodeBench v6, MCP-Mark, SWE-bench Multilingual, SWE-Bench Verified, Terminal-Bench 2.0, Toolathlon, WideSearch).

Kimi K2.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Mon Apr 20 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B costs less

For input processing, Qwen3.5-397B-A17B ($0.60/1M tokens) is 1.6x cheaper than Kimi K2.6 ($0.95/1M tokens).

For output processing, Qwen3.5-397B-A17B ($3.60/1M tokens) is 1.1x cheaper than Kimi K2.6 ($4.00/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Kimi K2.6 is more expensive than Qwen3.5-397B-A17B.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Mon Apr 20 2026 • llm-stats.com
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Input tokens$0.60
Output tokens$3.60
Best providerNovita
Moonshot AI
Kimi K2.6
Input tokens$0.95
Output tokens$4.00
Best providerUnknown Organization
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

603.0B diff

Kimi K2.6 has 603.0B more parameters than Qwen3.5-397B-A17B, making it 151.9% larger.

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
397.0Bparameters
Moonshot AI
Kimi K2.6
1000.0Bparameters
397.0B
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
1000.0B
Kimi K2.6

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Both models have the same input context window of 262,144 tokens. Kimi K2.6 can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is limited to 64,000 tokens.

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Input262,144 tokens
Output64,000 tokens
Moonshot AI
Kimi K2.6
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 tokens
Mon Apr 20 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Both Qwen3.5-397B-A17B and Kimi K2.6 support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Kimi K2.6

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is licensed under Apache 2.0, while Kimi K2.6 uses Modified MIT License.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Kimi K2.6

Modified MIT License

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B was released on 2026-02-16, while Kimi K2.6 was released on 2026-04-20.

Kimi K2.6 is 2 months newer than Qwen3.5-397B-A17B.

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

Feb 16, 2026

2 months ago

Kimi K2.6

Apr 20, 2026

0 days ago

2mo newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is available from Novita. Kimi K2.6 is available from Moonshot AI, Novita.

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.60/1MOutput Price:Output: $3.60/1M

Kimi K2.6

moonshot logo
Unknown Organization
Input Price:Input: $0.95/1MOutput Price:Output: $4.00/1M
novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.95/1MOutput Price:Output: $4.00/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

View details

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Less expensive input tokens
Less expensive output tokens
Moonshot AI
Higher AIME 2026 score (96.4% vs 91.3%)
Higher BrowseComp score (86.3% vs 69.0%)
Higher GPQA score (90.5% vs 88.4%)
Higher Humanity's Last Exam score (36.4% vs 28.7%)
Higher IMO-AnswerBench score (86.0% vs 80.9%)
Higher LiveCodeBench v6 score (89.6% vs 83.6%)
Higher MCP-Mark score (55.9% vs 46.1%)
Higher SWE-bench Multilingual score (76.7% vs 69.3%)
Higher SWE-Bench Verified score (80.2% vs 76.4%)
Higher Terminal-Bench 2.0 score (66.7% vs 52.5%)
Higher Toolathlon score (50.0% vs 38.3%)
Higher WideSearch score (80.8% vs 74.0%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Moonshot AI
Kimi K2.6

FAQ

Common questions about Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs Kimi K2.6

Kimi K2.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team and Kimi K2.6 is made by Moonshot AI. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B scores MMLU-Redux: 94.9%, HMMT 2025: 94.8%, C-Eval: 93.0%, HMMT25: 92.7%, IFEval: 92.6%. Kimi K2.6 scores V*: 96.9%, AIME 2026: 96.4%, MathVision: 93.2%, HMMT Feb 26: 92.7%, GPQA: 90.5%.
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is 1.6x cheaper for input tokens. Qwen3.5-397B-A17B costs $0.60/M input and $3.60/M output via novita. Kimi K2.6 costs $0.95/M input and $4.00/M output via moonshot.
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B supports 262K tokens and Kimi K2.6 supports 262K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.
Key differences include input pricing ($0.60 vs $0.95/M), licensing (Apache 2.0 vs Modified MIT License). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team and Kimi K2.6 is developed by Moonshot AI.