Multimodal
Like-for-like- GPT-5.4 mini
- 76.6
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- 78.5
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads
Model comparison
Updated July 30, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has the higher public score estimate, 58.53 versus 55.79, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
4 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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.
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
GPT-5.4 mini
GPT-5.4 mini has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
GPT-5.4 mini
GPT-5.4 mini has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
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
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
2 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
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.
| Category | GPT-5.4 mini | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | 76.6 | 78.5 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| Agentic | 65.7 | 55.0 | Directional only2 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 47.8 | 87.2 | Directional only2 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Coding | Not measured | 76.8 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 21.7 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
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
MMMU-Pro
Multimodal
GPQA
Knowledge
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.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
GPT-5.4 mini has the lower modeled cost
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
GPT-5.4 mini
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
256K
GPT-5.4 mini
gpt-5.4-mini
OpenAI GPT-5.4 mini model documentationKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Not sourced
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
GPT-5.4 mini
$0.075 per 1M cached input tokens
OpenAI pricingKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Not published
GPT-5.4 mini
text, image
OpenAI model catalogKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Not sourced
GPT-5.4 mini
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Not sourced
GPT-5.4 mini
Generally Available · OpenAI Responses API
OpenAI model catalogKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Not sourced
GPT-5.4 mini
Reasoning
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Reasoning
GPT-5.4 mini
Proprietary
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Proprietary
GPT-5.4 mini
Proprietary
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Proprietary
GPT-5.4 mini
2026-03-17
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
2026-02-01
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Terminal-Bench 2.0
GPT-5.4 mini leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Not directly comparable
τ²-bench results
Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Shared sourceGPT-5.4 mini leads this result
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Not directly comparable
GPQA
GPT-5.4 mini leads this result
HLE
Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Not directly comparable
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has the higher public score estimate, 58.53 versus 55.79, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
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.
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.003 on GPT-5.4 mini and $0.0021 on Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning); repository review costs $0.051 and $0.039; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.075 and $0.162. Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
GPT-5.4 mini has the larger documented context window: 400K, compared with 256K.
Last updated July 30, 2026
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.