DeepSeek V3.2
VS
Kimi K2.6
DeepSeek V3.2 vs Kimi K2.6: which wins at real work?
22 task areas · same graded test runs · rank comparison only, so 0–100 and Elo collections never mix raw scores.
Kimi K2.6 wins 20 of 22 task areas we tested; DeepSeek V3.2 takes 2. DeepSeek V3.2 costs 7.1× less per token ($0.572 vs $4.07 per 1M).
DeepSeek V3.2 costs 7.1× less per token ($0.572 vs $4.07 per 1M).
Task by task
| Task area | DeepSeek V3.2 | Kimi K2.6 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding |
#100
/ 115
Usable
|
#5
/ 115
Excellent
|
Kimi K2.6 |
| AI Strategy |
#102
/ 126
Usable
|
#19
/ 126
Strong
|
Kimi K2.6 |
| Presentations & Decks |
#81
/ 110
Strong
|
#2
/ 110
Excellent
|
Kimi K2.6 |
| Creative & Comedy | #87 / 110 | #11 / 110 | Kimi K2.6 |
| Sales |
#91
/ 110
Usable
|
#15
/ 110
Strong
|
Kimi K2.6 |
| Content & Brand |
#95
/ 124
Usable
|
#22
/ 124
Strong
|
Kimi K2.6 |
| Chef / Home Cooking |
#78
/ 126
Usable
|
#7
/ 126
Strong
|
Kimi K2.6 |
| Customer Support |
#74
/ 113
Usable
|
#4
/ 113
Strong
|
Kimi K2.6 |
| Executive Assistant |
#76
/ 112
Usable
|
#8
/ 112
Strong
|
Kimi K2.6 |
| Legal & HR |
#90
/ 110
Strong
|
#22
/ 110
Excellent
|
Kimi K2.6 |
| Translation & Localization |
#89
/ 110
Strong
|
#22
/ 110
Excellent
|
Kimi K2.6 |
| RAG, Safety & Grounding |
#83
/ 113
Excellent
|
#18
/ 113
Excellent
|
Kimi K2.6 |
| Structured Output |
#67
/ 113
Strong
|
#14
/ 113
Excellent
|
Kimi K2.6 |
| Data & Analytics |
#69
/ 110
Excellent
|
#23
/ 110
Excellent
|
Kimi K2.6 |
| Investor & Pitch |
#46
/ 66
Usable
|
#1
/ 66
Strong
|
Kimi K2.6 |
| Knowledge & Docs |
#58
/ 110
Usable
|
#22
/ 110
Strong
|
Kimi K2.6 |
| Research & Competitive Analysis |
#53
/ 110
Usable
|
#19
/ 110
Excellent
|
Kimi K2.6 |
| Product & Project Management |
#21
/ 110
Excellent
|
#53
/ 110
Strong
|
DeepSeek V3.2 |
| Landing Pages |
#48
/ 72
Usable
|
#21
/ 72
Strong
|
Kimi K2.6 |
| Summarization & Meeting Notes |
#30
/ 110
Excellent
|
#3
/ 110
Excellent
|
Kimi K2.6 |
| Frontend & Landing Pages |
#25
/ 109
Needs editing
|
#8
/ 109
Usable
|
Kimi K2.6 |
| Training & Education |
#38
/ 110
Excellent
|
#45
/ 110
Excellent
|
DeepSeek V3.2 |
Rank = position among every model config we tested in that task area (lower is better). Sorted by biggest gap first.
Same task, both models — judged
Both models answered the same test case; an independent judge graded each. Quotes are the judge's actual rationale.
Coding
JavaScript debounce implementation (Bug Fixing)
“While the core `debounce` function is implemented correctly (handling `this` context, arguments, and cancellation), the provided example usage contains syntax errors/undefined variables (`A00`, `A0`), rendering the code broken and non-executable. Furthermore, the answer fails to provide any explanation for the implementation.”
“The model provides a correct, minimal, and secure implementation of a debounce function with cancel support. It correctly handles the `this` context and arguments forwarding, and provides a clear explanation and usage example.”
Content & Brand
Founder-led sales is not optional (Point of View Test)
“The response failed the hard constraint for word count by exceeding the 240-word maximum.”
“The response perfectly executes the prompt. It meets all constraints, including word count, and delivers a highly specific, opinionated, and actionable argument with excellent tone control.”
Customer Support
Payment failed (Basic Support Reply Test)
“The model completely misunderstood the context of the benchmark ('Basic Support Reply Test'). Instead of drafting a ready-to-use response to a customer experiencing a payment failure, it generated an internal guide for support agents. Consequently, it fails on empathy, tone, and direct problem resolution.”
“The response is an excellent, production-ready template. It provides clear, actionable steps for resolving a payment failure while explicitly and proactively addressing security risks by warning the user not to send sensitive information via email. It is concise, well-organized, and maintains a professional tone.”
Frequently asked
Is DeepSeek V3.2 better than Kimi K2.6?
Across 22 task areas we benchmarked, Kimi K2.6 ranks higher in 20 and DeepSeek V3.2 in 2.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V3.2 or Kimi K2.6?
DeepSeek V3.2 costs 7.1× less per token ($0.572 vs $4.07 per 1M).
What is DeepSeek V3.2 better at?
DeepSeek V3.2 out-ranks Kimi K2.6 at Product & Project Management, Training & Education.
What is Kimi K2.6 better at?
Kimi K2.6 out-ranks DeepSeek V3.2 at Coding, AI Strategy, Presentations & Decks.
More comparisons
This page is Spring Prompt, running in public
We just did this for every model. Do it for your prompt.
The rankings above come from running real tasks through real models and scoring every output. Spring Prompt is that same engine — pointed at your prompt, your test cases, and your definition of good.
- Generate test cases from your prompt — no eval set required to start.
- Compare models side by side with quality, cost and latency in one matrix.
- Optimise the winner until the scores say it's ready to ship.
Prompt × model results
12 test cases · 3 evals