Agentic
Directional only- Composer 2
- 61.7
- Kimi K2.5
- 55.0
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Model comparison
Composer 2 vs Kimi K2.5
Updated August 7, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
4 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Kimi K2.5
Kimi K2.5 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Composer 2
Composer 2 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Composer 2
Composer 2 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Composer 2 does not fit this workload in one request. Composer 2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Kimi K2.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
1 Composer 2 only
4 Shared
41 Kimi K2.5 only
- Shared results
- 4
- Composer 2 only
- 1
- Kimi K2.5 only
- 41
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
2 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Coding
Directional only- Composer 2
- 58.0
- Kimi K2.5
- 59.4
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 4 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Composer 2
- Not measured
- Kimi K2.5
- 61.0
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Composer 2
- Not measured
- Kimi K2.5
- 56.9
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 4 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Composer 2
- Not measured
- Kimi K2.5
- 60.6
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 4 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Composer 2
- Not measured
- Kimi K2.5
- 82.3
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Composer 2
- Not measured
- Kimi K2.5
- 78.5
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Composer 2
- Not measured
- Kimi K2.5
- 93.9
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Composer 2 | Kimi K2.5 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 61.7 | 55.0 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 58.0 | 59.4 | Directional only1 vs 4 rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | Not measured | 61.0 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | 56.9 | Not comparable0 vs 4 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | 60.6 | Not comparable0 vs 4 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | 82.3 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | 78.5 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | 93.9 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
SWE-Rebench
Coding
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Composer 2
- $0.00175
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K2.5
- $0.0021
- Fits in one request
Composer 2 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Composer 2
- $0.0325
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K2.5
- $0.039
- Fits in one request
Composer 2 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Composer 2
- $0.135
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Kimi K2.5
- $0.162
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Composer 2 does not fit this workload in one request. Composer 2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Kimi K2.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationComposer 2Kimi K2.5
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Composer 2
200K
Kimi K2.5
256K
API model ID
Composer 2
Not sourced
Kimi K2.5
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Composer 2
Not published
Kimi K2.5
Not published
Documented inputs
Composer 2
Not sourced
Kimi K2.5
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Composer 2
Not sourced
Kimi K2.5
Not sourced
Provider availability
Composer 2
Not sourced
Kimi K2.5
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Composer 2
Reasoning
Kimi K2.5
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Composer 2
Proprietary
Kimi K2.5
Open Weight
License
Composer 2
Proprietary
Kimi K2.5
Open Weight
Release date
Composer 2
2026-03-19
Kimi K2.5
2026-02-01
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.0325 vs $0.039. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.135 vs $0.162.
- Context tradeoff
- Kimi K2.5 has the larger documented window (256K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Composer 2
API / mo$2,250
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Kimi K2.5
API / mo$2,700
Self-host / mo$5,221
Break-even132M/day
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence46 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Composer 261.7%SourceKimi K2.550.8%SourceComposer 2 leads this result
BrowseComp
Composer 2—Kimi K2.560.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Composer 2—Kimi K2.552.3%SourceNot directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Composer 2—Kimi K2.554.3%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Composer 2—Kimi K2.565.7%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Composer 2—Kimi K2.577.1%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Composer 2—Kimi K2.514.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon
Composer 2—Kimi K2.527.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Composer 2—Kimi K2.529.5%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP-Tasks
Composer 2—Kimi K2.559.1%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
Composer 2—Kimi K2.572.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
Composer 2—Kimi K2.545.88%SourceNot directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Composer 2—Kimi K2.514.0%SourceNot directly comparable
JobBench
Composer 2—Kimi K2.58.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE Multilingual
Composer 273.7%SourceKimi K2.573%SourceComposer 2 leads this result
SWE-Rebench
Composer 258%SourceKimi K2.558.5%SourceKimi K2.5 leads this result
React Native Evals
Shared sourceComposer 296.1%Kimi K2.577.2%Composer 2 leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Composer 261.7%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Composer 2—Kimi K2.576.8%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified*
Composer 2—Kimi K2.570.8%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Composer 2—Kimi K2.585.0%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Composer 2—Kimi K2.550.7%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
Composer 2—Kimi K2.548.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
LongBench v2
Composer 2—Kimi K2.561%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Composer 2—Kimi K2.587.6%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA-D
Composer 2—Kimi K2.587.6%SourceNot directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Composer 2—Kimi K2.569.2%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Composer 2—Kimi K2.587.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)
Composer 2—Kimi K2.587.1%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
Composer 2—Kimi K2.530.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
AIME 2025
Composer 2—Kimi K2.596.1%SourceNot directly comparable
AIME26
Composer 2—Kimi K2.595.8%SourceNot directly comparable
AIME25 (Arcee)
Composer 2—Kimi K2.596.3%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
Composer 2—Kimi K2.595.4%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Composer 2—Kimi K2.591.1%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Composer 2—Kimi K2.587.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Composer 2—Kimi K2.581.8%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Composer 2—Kimi K2.527.900%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Composer 2—Kimi K2.54.200%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
Multimodal
Instruction following
IFEval
Composer 2—Kimi K2.593.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Composer 2 or Kimi K2.5?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Composer 2 or Kimi K2.5?
The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Composer 2 or Kimi K2.5?
The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Composer 2 or Kimi K2.5?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00175 on Composer 2 and $0.0021 on Kimi K2.5; repository review costs $0.0325 and $0.039; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.135 and $0.162. Composer 2 does not fit this workload in one request. Composer 2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Kimi K2.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Composer 2 or Kimi K2.5?
Kimi K2.5 has the larger documented context window: 256K, compared with 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 7, 2026
Watch Composer 2 vs Kimi K2.5
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.