LLMBenchmark.ai

Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Trinity Large Thinking vs Kimi K2.6

Updated October 21, 2026. 51 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Replace Trinity Large Thinking Replace Kimi K2.6
Trinity Large ThinkingArcee AI
Coding
5.4
Overall
10.8
Output $/M
$0.80
0
Kimi K2.6Moonshot AI
Coding
44.2
Overall
27.0
Output $/M
$3.41
51
vs boards won of 51 shared

Decision reading

Pick Kimi K2.6 for coding: it scores 44.2 on the Vibe Coding Index against 5.4 for Trinity Large Thinking.

Pick Trinity Large Thinking when output tokens cost 4.3x less.

Model ATrinity Large ThinkingArcee AI5.4/1001 independent benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BKimi K2.6Moonshot AI44.2/1001 independent benchmark$0.35 per solved task
Shared results
51
Trinity Large Thinking only
1
Kimi K2.6 only
58
Like-for-like categories
8 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Trinity Large Thinking 5.4 from 1 benchmark, Kimi K2.6 44.2 from 1 benchmark.
Widest category
Coding, 29.5 points apart on average over 8 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMArena WebDev: React: Trinity Large Thinking 1231 against Kimi K2.6 1505, 45.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Trinity Large Thinking $0.80 against Kimi K2.6 $3.41 per million output tokens, 4.3x apart.
Context window
Both take 262K tokens.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryTrinity Large ThinkingBarsKimi K2.6Ties
Coding08
Intelligence01
Agentic work02
Reasoning05
Math02
Knowledge06
Web design08
General019
All shared boards051
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index08
Coding benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingKimi K2.6Leader
LMArena WebDev12381509Kimi K2.6
AA Coding Index25.861.8Kimi K2.6
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured86.8%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured76.2%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured37.9%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured27.8%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)Not measured0.0%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured53.6%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
SciCode40.6%51.5%Kimi K2.6
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)22.7%43.9%Kimi K2.6
WeirdMLNot measured55.9%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
ALE-BenchNot measured1092.7Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Text: coding13571489Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: software and IT13621484Kimi K2.6
LMArena WebDev: React12311505Kimi K2.6
LMArena WebDev: HTML12401485Kimi K2.6
LMArena WebDev: from an imageNot measured1521Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingKimi K2.6Leader
AA Intelligence Index10.827.0Kimi K2.6
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured150.9Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Agentic work benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingKimi K2.6Leader
AA Agentic Index1.020.5Kimi K2.6
Design Arena: agents building web appsNot measured1268Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack appsNot measured1155Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile appsNot measured1156Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android appsNot measured1166Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot gamesNot measured1120Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building gamesNot measured1141Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Design Arena: HTML slidesNot measured1184Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slidesNot measured1128Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Design Arena: spreadsheetsNot measured1276Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured44.9%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured12.4%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured15.9%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured57.9%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom90.1%95.9%Kimi K2.6
OSWorld 2.0Not measured4.6%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$6,205Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Reasoning benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingKimi K2.6Leader
GPQA DiamondNot measured89.1%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured86.3%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)75.2%91.1%Kimi K2.6
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)15.8%37.5%Kimi K2.6
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured90.8%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured20.0%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured18.0%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
EBR-benchNot measured2.4%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts13421470Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: expert13591491Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13561471Kimi K2.6
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1298Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1310Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Math benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingKimi K2.6Leader
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured96.1%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured57.2%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
FrontierMath, tier 4Not measured25.6%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
ProofBenchNot measured16.0%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Text: math13651474Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: mathematical work13501480Kimi K2.6
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
Knowledge benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingKimi K2.6Leader
MMLU ProNot measured87.6%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured84.7%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)57.9%61.2%Kimi K2.6
CorpFin (Vals AI)54.7%66.7%Kimi K2.6
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured74.7%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured65.8%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured40.1%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured34.9%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Text: science13551468Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13491457Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: legal and government13451462Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: business and finance13291445Kimi K2.6
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index08
Web design benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingKimi K2.6Leader
Design Arena: websites11371269Kimi K2.6
Design Arena: UI components10451266Kimi K2.6
Design Arena: game dev10791251Kimi K2.6
Design Arena: data viz10981249Kimi K2.6
Design Arena: 3D10821268Kimi K2.6
Design Arena: all code categories11171272Kimi K2.6
Design Arena: SVG10161181Kimi K2.6
Design Arena: ASCII art10411164Kimi K2.6
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index019
General benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingKimi K2.6Leader
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)Not measured56.6%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured50.2%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured78.2%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Vals Multimodal IndexNot measured56.4%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
IFBench56.3%76.0%Kimi K2.6
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)38.0%81.0%Kimi K2.6
DTBenchNot measured90.9%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMCANot measured37.3%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Surface Evolver Bench15.6%Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
Furniture assemblyNot measured21.7%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
ExploitBenchNot measured18.4%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Text13401455Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: instruction following13261451Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: creative writing13081434Kimi K2.6
LMArena VisionNot measured1282Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Text: English13561460Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: non-English13251446Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: Chinese13711520Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: German13561451Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: Japanese13121443Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: Korean13061427Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: French13661471Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: Spanish13271464Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: Russian13381446Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: Polish13121438Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: multi-turn13201453Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: longer queries13181468Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: writing and language13171439Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12961428Kimi K2.6
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1287Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1346Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1291Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1280Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1273Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena DocumentNot measured1451Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingKimi K2.6Leader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Trinity Large Thinking$0.0006Fits in one request
Kimi K2.6$0.0024Fits in one request

Trinity Large Thinking costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Trinity Large Thinking$0.015Fits in one request
Kimi K2.6$0.043Fits in one request

Trinity Large Thinking costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Trinity Large Thinking$0.058Fits in one request
Kimi K2.6$0.164Fits in one request

Trinity Large Thinking costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Trinity Large Thinking and Kimi K2.6
SpecificationArcee AI Trinity Large ThinkingMoonshotAI Kimi K2.6
MakerArcee AIMoonshot AI
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedApril 1, 2026April 20, 2026
Context window262K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.25$0.65
Output $/Mtok$0.80$3.41
Coding index5.444.2
Independent measurements behind it11
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.35
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Trinity Large Thinking better than Kimi K2.6 for coding?

Pick Kimi K2.6 for coding: it scores 44.2 on the Vibe Coding Index against 5.4 for Trinity Large Thinking. Pick Trinity Large Thinking when output tokens cost 4.3x less.

Which is cheaper, Trinity Large Thinking or Kimi K2.6?

Trinity Large Thinking costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.80 per million output tokens; Kimi K2.6 costs $0.65 and $3.41. Cost per solved task is known for Kimi K2.6 only.

Which has the bigger context window, Trinity Large Thinking or Kimi K2.6?

Neither: both take 262K tokens.

How many benchmarks is the Trinity Large Thinking vs Kimi K2.6 comparison based on?

51 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Trinity Large Thinking's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Kimi K2.6's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next