Compare/Kimi K2.6 vs DeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25)

Kimi K2.6vsDeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25)

Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.

Kimi

Kimi K2.6

Input
$0.95/M
Output
$4/M
Speed
TTFT
DeepSeek

DeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25)

Input
$1.35/M
Output
$4.2/M
Speed
TTFT

Winner by Category

Cheaper
Kimi K2.6
Faster (tok/s)
Tie
Lower Latency
Tie
Benchmarks (7-5)
Kimi K2.6

Pricing Comparison

MetricKimi K2.6DeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25)
Input ($/M tokens)$0.95$1.35
Output ($/M tokens)$4$4.2
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
Kimi K2.6$1.35
DeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25)$1.77

Speed Comparison

Speed data not available for these models.

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. Kimi K2.6 wins the overall benchmark matchup 7–5 across 12 overlapping categories, but raw benchmark score is only one input to the decision.

Pricing. Both models sit in the mid-tier bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.0× the per-million-token cost, Kimi K2.6 is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Kimi K2.6 makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.

Strengths. Kimi K2.6 is strongest on GPQA Diamond (91%), IFBench (76%), Coding Index (61.8). DeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25) leads on MATH-500 (98%), MMLU-Pro (85%), GPQA Diamond (81%).

Speed. Throughput is comparable — 0 tok/s vs 0 tok/s — so generation speed shouldn't drive your choice here. Look at the per-benchmark wins instead.

Provider. Kimi and DeepSeek sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Kimi tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while DeepSeek often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.

Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): Kimi K2.6 costs $88.50 ($1062/year); DeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25) costs $103.50 ($1242/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Kimi K2.6 ≈ $12.75/run, DeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25) ≈ $15.15/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Kimi K2.6 ≈ $590/run, DeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25) ≈ $690/run. Kimi K2.6 becomes more attractive at higher volume — the absolute per-token pricing difference compounds when you ship at scale.

Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.

Head-to-head deltas

  • Aggregate benchmark score (sum across 12 categories, capped at 100): Kimi K2.6 = 109, DeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25) = 101. Within 15% — effectively equivalent if both meet the threshold your product requires.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
44.220.1
Coding Index
61.8
Math Index
76.0
GPQA Diamond
91.1%81.3%
MMLU-Pro
84.9%
LiveCodeBench
77.0%
AIME 2025
76.0%
MATH-500
98.3%
Humanity's Last Exam
35.9%14.9%
SciCode
53.5%40.3%
IFBench
76.0%39.6%
TerminalBench
43.9%15.9%
Kimi K2.67 wins
5 winsDeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25)

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, Kimi K2.6 or DeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25)?

Kimi K2.6 is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $1.71/M tokens vs $2.06/M for DeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25).

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

Kimi K2.6 wins 7 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 5 for DeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25). See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

Both models have comparable generation speeds.

When should I use Kimi K2.6 vs DeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25)?

Choose based on your priorities: Kimi K2.6 for lower cost, Kimi K2.6 for stronger benchmark performance, and both have comparable speed. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.