Kimi K2.6 vs Qwen3.8 Flash

At a Glance

Compare
Kimi K2.6Moonshot AI
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5#32 of 4650.5 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 33.6–67.0UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort
CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate#21 of 44$0.095 per LiveBench case#4 of 44$0.021 per LiveBench case
EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5#24 of 3850.1 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 41.7–58.4UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort
Pricing and Limits
Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$0.75Deepinfra · Sep 21, 2026$0.113Deepinfra · Sep 21, 2026
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$3.50Deepinfra · Sep 21, 2026$0.382Deepinfra · Sep 21, 2026
Context windowMaximum documented tokens262K1,000K
Model facts checkedAug 28, 2026View model evidence →Aug 29, 2026View model evidence →

Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →

Available Benchmarks

All benchmark results →
BenchmarkKimi-K2.6Qwen3.8-Flash
LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader74.1894% of row best · percent · kimi-k2.6-thinking · 27,001 output tokens / case79.12100% of row best · percent · qwen3.8-flash-next · 54,438 output tokens / case
ToneBench2026-09-11-10-task-4ef099199c9c · overall_score · unverified82.2499% of row best · points · Kimi K2.6 (thinking) · 18,080 output tokens / case83.20100% of row best · points · Qwen3.8 Flash · 24,187 output tokens / case
Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above0 benchmark winsNo overall winner1 benchmark winNo overall winner

Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.

Side-by-Side Facts

FieldKimi-K2.6Qwen3.8-Flash
DeveloperMoonshot AIQwen
FamilyKimi K2 6Qwen3 8 Flash
ModelKimi-K2.6Qwen3.8-Flash
VersionKimi-K2.6Qwen3.8-Flash
Lifecycleactiveactive
Released2026-04-20Unknown
Knowledge cutoffUnknownUnknown
Input modalitiesText, ImageText, Image, Video
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window262K1,000K
Total parameters1TUnknown
Active parameters32BUnknown
LicenseotherUnknown
Open weightsYesNo
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableYesNo
Provider accessDeepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard)Alibaba Cloud Model Studio (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoning, toolsagents, chat, computer-use, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools, vision

Kimi K2.6 Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Serving providers5
Canonical IDmoonshotai/Kimi-K2.6

Qwen3.8 Flash Capabilities

agentschatcomputer-usereasoningstructured outputstoolsvision
Serving providers4
Canonical IDqwen/qwen3.8-flash

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Kimi K2.6 vs Qwen3.8 Flash FAQs

Is Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.8 Flash better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Kimi K2.6 and Qwen3.8 Flash, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.8 Flash?+

Kimi K2.6 is $0.75 and Qwen3.8 Flash is $0.113 per million tokens, so Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper on this metric. Kimi K2.6 is $3.50 and Qwen3.8 Flash is $0.382 per million tokens, so Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.8 Flash?+

Qwen3.8 Flash has the larger sourced context window. Kimi K2.6 supports 262K and Qwen3.8 Flash supports 1,000K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.8 Flash?+

There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.

Can Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.8 Flash be self-hosted?+

Kimi K2.6 is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Kimi K2.6 is open weight; Qwen3.8 Flash is not marked open weight.

Can Kimi K2.6 and Qwen3.8 Flash understand images?+

Kimi K2.6 is documented with image input; Qwen3.8 Flash is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.8 Flash?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Kimi K2.6 is — and Qwen3.8 Flash is 131K.

Do Kimi K2.6 and Qwen3.8 Flash support reasoning and tool use?+

Kimi K2.6: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Qwen3.8 Flash: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.8 Flash?+

Kimi K2.6 has 5 sourced provider routes; Qwen3.8 Flash has 4, so Kimi K2.6 has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3.8 Flash?+

There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.

Send Feedback