Model Comparison
Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning)
vs. Qwen3 30B A3B (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · MoonshotAI, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Mo Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning) 10 metric wins Strongest on: Latency, Intelligence, Coding
Best Value
Qwen3 30B A3B (Reasoning)
100.0 value score
57.1 reasoning / $0.18/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3 30B A3B (Reasoning)
$0.09/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3 30B A3B (Reasoning)
57.1 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning)
38.4 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Qwen3 30B A3B (Reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3 30B A3B (Reasoning) is 10.6x cheaper on input tokens than Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning).
Speed gap
Qwen3 30B A3B (Reasoning) generates about 2.2x as many tokens per second as Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Qwen3 30B A3B (Reasoning) leads Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning) by 10.4 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning) leads Qwen3 30B A3B (Reasoning) by 27.4 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning)
MoonshotAI
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3 30B A3B (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick Mo Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning) | Al Qwen3 30B A3B (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.95/1M | $0.09/1M |
| Output Cost | $4.00/1M | $0.45/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.71/1M | $0.18/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | MoonshotAI | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Apr 20, 2026 | Apr 28, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 36.4 tok/s | 81.2 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1240ms | 1228ms |
| Latency | 1240ms | 25855ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 8.6 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 46.6 | 57.1 |
| Intelligence | 42.9 | 15.3 |
| Coding | 38.4 | 11.0 |
| Math | — | 72.3 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 78.8% | 61.6% |
| MMLU Pro | — | 77.7% |
| HLE | 18.2% | 6.6% |
| LiveCodeBench | — | 50.6% |
| MATH 500 | — | 95.9% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 72.3% |
| AIME (Original) | — | 75.3% |
| SciCode | 39.5% | 28.5% |
| LCR | 57.7% | 0.0% |
| IFBench | 44.3% | 41.5% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 93.9% | 26.0% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 37.9% | 2.3% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3 30B A3B (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.09/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3 30B A3B (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 57.1 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning) reaches a 38.4 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning)
- Code generation
- Software development
Qwen3 30B A3B (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
