Skip to main content

Model comparison

GPT-5.2 vs Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

OpenAI
58.43/100
Margin
0.9pts
winning →
59.35/100
3 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: GPT-5.2 #64 (Estimated); Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) #57 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. GPT-5.2 and Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) share 18 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 10 results are unique to GPT-5.2; 9 to Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning).

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
18
GPT-5.2 only
10
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) only
9
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.2 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 400K context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 4 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 59.35 versus 58.43. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)'s sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 76.8 against 70.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is BrowseComp, 65.8% to 60.6%. GPT-5.2 does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

GPT-5.2 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.75 input / $14.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.60 input / $3.00 output per 1M tokens for Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning). That is roughly 4.7x on output cost alone. GPT-5.2 gives you the larger context window at 400K, compared with 128K for Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning).

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for GPT-5.2 and Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
CategoryGPT-5.2ΔKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
CodingGPT-5.270.6Margin 6.2Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)76.8
KnowledgeGPT-5.292.4Margin 5.2Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)87.2
MultimodalGPT-5.280.4Margin 1.9Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)78.5
AgenticGPT-5.255.7Margin 0.7Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)55.0
ReasoningGPT-5.252.9MarginNo overlapKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Not measured
MathGPT-5.235.2MarginNo overlapKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · GPT-5.2B · Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
  1. BrowseComp

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 65.8%B 60.6%
    Winner: GPT-5.2Δ 5.2
    BrowseComp: GPT-5.2 scored 65.8%; Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) scored 60.6%. GPT-5.2 wins this benchmark.
  2. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 92.4%B 87.6%
    Winner: GPT-5.2Δ 4.8
    GPQA: GPT-5.2 scored 92.4%; Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) scored 87.6%. GPT-5.2 wins this benchmark.
  3. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 80%B 76.8%
    Winner: GPT-5.2Δ 3.2
    SWE-bench Verified: GPT-5.2 scored 80%; Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) scored 76.8%. GPT-5.2 wins this benchmark.
  4. MMMU-Pro

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 79.5%B 78.5%
    Winner: GPT-5.2Δ 1
    MMMU-Pro: GPT-5.2 scored 79.5%; Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) scored 78.5%. GPT-5.2 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricGPT-5.2Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGPT-5.2$1.75 input / $14 outputKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)$0.6 input / $3 outputKimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondGPT-5.273 tok/sKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGPT-5.2130.34 sKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGPT-5.2400KKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)128KGPT-5.2 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticGPT-5.2 wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.2Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Result
BrowseCompSource 65.8%60.6%GPT-5.2 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 47.3%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 84.8%95.9%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads
Gert LabsSource 46.54%32.58%GPT-5.2 leads
JobBenchSource 34.3%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 50.8%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource 11.5%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 21.7%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 25.4%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1009Not comparable
CodingKimi K2.5 (Reasoning) wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.2Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80%76.8%GPT-5.2 leads
SWE-bench ProSource 55.6%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 53.50%17.54%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 52.1%49.0%GPT-5.2 leads
AA Coding IndexSource 46.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGPT-5.2Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Result
ARC-AGI-2Source 52.9%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 72.7%65.3%GPT-5.2 leads
CritPtSource 11.6%3.1%GPT-5.2 leads
KnowledgeGPT-5.2 wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.2Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Result
GPQASource 92.4%87.6%GPT-5.2 leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 42.2%35.4%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 90.3%87.9%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-HLESource 35.4%29.4%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -1.0%-8.1%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 43.8%34.3%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 79.7%64.6%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads
MMLU-ProSource 87.1%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkGPT-5.2Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Result
AA AIME 2025Source 99.0%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 40.700%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 18.800%Not comparable
AIME 2025Source 96.1%Not comparable
MultimodalGPT-5.2 wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.2Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Result
MMMU-ProSource 79.5%78.5%GPT-5.2 leads
MathVisionSource 83.0%Not comparable
CharXivSource 82.1%Not comparable
V*Source 75.9%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12271282Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads
AA-MMMU-ProSource 75.4%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGPT-5.2Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Result
AA-IFBenchSource 75.4%70.2%GPT-5.2 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, GPT-5.2 or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?

Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 59.35 to 58.43. The biggest single separator in this matchup is BrowseComp, where the scores are 65.8% and 60.6%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-5.2 or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?

GPT-5.2 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 92.4 versus 87.2. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, GPT-5.2 or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?

Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 76.8 versus 70.6. Inside this category, Vibe Code Bench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.2 or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?

GPT-5.2 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 55.7 versus 55. Inside this category, Gert Labs is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, GPT-5.2 or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?

GPT-5.2 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 80.4 versus 78.5. Inside this category, Design Arena Website is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 20, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.