// head_to_head

Kimi K2.6 vs Qwen3 Max Thinking

Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.

OpenRouter + LiveBenchAll comparisonsFull leaderboard

Kimi K2.6 and Qwen3 Max Thinking are priced within ~10% of each other.

Qwen3 Max Thinking does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.

moonshotai

Kimi K2.6

Blended / 1M
$1.71
Context
262K
Released
Apr 20, 2026
Overall score
70.5
reasoningtool callingimage inputprompt caching

qwen

Qwen3 Max Thinking

Blended / 1M
$1.56
Context
262K
Released
Feb 9, 2026
Overall score
Not evaluated
reasoningtool calling

Specs and pricing

MetricKimi K2.6Qwen3 Max Thinking
LiveBench overall

Mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better.

70.5
Cost per point

Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability.

$0.0918
Blended price / 1M

3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic.

$1.71$1.56
Input price / 1M$0.950$0.780win
Output price / 1M$4.00$3.90
Cached input / 1M

Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one.

$0.160
Context window262K262K
Max output tokens236Kwin66K

Benchmarks by category

An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — Kimi K2.6 on top, Qwen3 Max Thinking below, both out of 100.

Agentic coding
46.9
Coding
78.6
Reasoning
79.4
Mathematics
84.3
Data analysis
65.1
Language
75.1
Instruction following
64.4

What each one costs to run

Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.

WorkloadKimi K2.6Qwen3 Max Thinking
Support chatbot

1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests

$491.12/mo$499.20/mo
RAG assistant

8K in / 600 out × 100K requests

$684.00/mo$858.00/mo
Coding agent

40K in / 4K out × 20K requests

$637.60/mo$936.00/mo
Document extraction

20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests

$1,211/mo$1,073/mo
Bulk classification

500 in / 20 out × 5M requests

$2,380/mo$2,340/mo
Run these two through the cost calculator

Kimi K2.6 vs Qwen3 Max Thinking FAQ

Which is better, Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3 Max Thinking?

Kimi K2.6 and Qwen3 Max Thinking are priced within ~10% of each other. Qwen3 Max Thinking does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.

Is Kimi K2.6 cheaper than Qwen3 Max Thinking?

They cost about the same. Both land near $1.71 per million tokens on a 3:1 input:output blend, so price is unlikely to be the deciding factor between them.

Does Kimi K2.6 or Qwen3 Max Thinking have a bigger context window?

They are effectively the same — 262K for Kimi K2.6 and 262K for Qwen3 Max Thinking.

Do Kimi K2.6 and Qwen3 Max Thinking support prompt caching?

Kimi K2.6 publishes a cached-input rate of $0.160 per million tokens against a full input rate of $0.950. The catalogue lists no separate cached rate for Qwen3 Max Thinking, which means the provider does not price it separately here — not that caching is unavailable.

Related comparisons

How these numbers are produced

  • Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
  • ScoresLiveBench release 2026-06-25, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
  • Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
  • “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.

Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.