Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

See the free Radar Brief
OpenAI logo
Model A
GPT-5.5 Pro

OpenAI

63.07/100

Estimated · Public rank #56

90% interval 51.674.6

GPT-5.5 Pro vs Kimi K2.5

Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Moonshot AI logo
Model B
Kimi K2.5

Moonshot AI

55.62/100

Supported · Public rank #103

90% interval 50.261.0

Decision reading

GPT-5.5 Pro has the higher public score estimate, 63.07 versus 55.62, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

4 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

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

    GPT-5.5 Pro

    GPT-5.5 Pro has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Kimi K2.5

    Kimi K2.5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Kimi K2.5

    Kimi K2.5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. GPT-5.5 Pro 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

Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Kimi K2.5

    Kimi K2.5 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

    GPT-5.5 Pro is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    GPT-5.5 Pro and Kimi K2.5 are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

What is actually comparable

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

Shared results
4
GPT-5.5 Pro only
2
Kimi K2.5 only
41
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Directional only
GPT-5.5 Pro
60.6
Estimated · #24/151
Kimi K2.5
46.0
Estimated · #90/151
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 14 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
GPT-5.5 Pro
61.1
Estimated · #36/181
Kimi K2.5
53.1
Estimated · #70/181
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 6 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Not comparable
GPT-5.5 Pro
Not ranked
Kimi K2.5
51.5
Estimated · #64/183
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 8 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
GPT-5.5 Pro
Not ranked
Kimi K2.5
53.5
Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
GPT-5.5 Pro
70.2
Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Kimi K2.5
62.4
#5/7
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 4 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
GPT-5.5 Pro
Not ranked
Kimi K2.5
38.2
#8/12
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
GPT-5.5 Pro
Not ranked
Kimi K2.5
65.7
#24/48
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
GPT-5.5 Pro
Not ranked
Kimi K2.5
85.6
#40/120
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

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.

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

GPT-5.5 Pro
$0.12
Fits in one request
Kimi K2.5
$0.0021
Fits in one request

Kimi K2.5 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

GPT-5.5 Pro
$2.04
Fits in one request
Kimi K2.5
$0.039
Fits in one request

Kimi K2.5 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

GPT-5.5 Pro
$8.40
Fits 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

Kimi K2.5 has the lower modeled cost

GPT-5.5 Pro 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.

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

GPT-5.5 Pro

Not published

OpenAI pricing

Kimi K2.5

Not published

Provider availability

GPT-5.5 Pro

Generally Available · OpenAI Responses API

OpenAI model catalog

Kimi K2.5

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

GPT-5.5 Pro

Reasoning

Kimi K2.5

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

GPT-5.5 Pro

Proprietary

Kimi K2.5

Open Weight

License

GPT-5.5 Pro

Proprietary

Kimi K2.5

Open Weight

Release date

GPT-5.5 Pro

2026-04-23

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
GPT-5.5 Pro has the higher public score estimate, 63.07 versus 55.62, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
Repository review: $2.04 vs $0.039. Cache-heavy agent loop: $8.40 vs $0.162.
Context tradeoff
GPT-5.5 Pro has the larger documented window (1.05M).

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.

GPT-5.5 Pro
API / mo$157,500
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
Model the full break-even

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence47 rows

Agentic

  • BrowseComp

    GPT-5.5 Pro90.1%
    Source
    Kimi K2.560.6%
    Source

    GPT-5.5 Pro leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.550.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.552.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • QwenClawBench

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.554.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.565.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.577.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepPlanning

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.514.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.527.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.529.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP-Tasks

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.559.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.572.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.545.88%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.514.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.58.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.576.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified*

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.570.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v6

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.585.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.550.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.573%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-Rebench

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.558.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • React Native Evals

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.577.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SciCode

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.548.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • LongBench v2

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.561%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HLE

    GPT-5.5 Pro57.2%
    Source
    Kimi K2.530.1%
    Source

    GPT-5.5 Pro leads this result

  • HLE w/o tools

    GPT-5.5 Pro43.1%
    Source
    Kimi K2.5

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.587.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.587.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SuperGPQA

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.569.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.587.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Arcee)

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.587.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath (legacy)

    GPT-5.5 Pro52.4%
    Source
    Kimi K2.5

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Shared source
    GPT-5.5 Pro51.000%
    Kimi K2.527.900%

    GPT-5.5 Pro leads this result

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Shared source
    GPT-5.5 Pro39.600%
    Kimi K2.54.200%

    GPT-5.5 Pro leads this result

  • AIME 2025

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.596.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME26

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.595.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME25 (Arcee)

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.596.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2025

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.595.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Nov 2025

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.591.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.587.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMAnswerBench

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.581.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multilingual

  • MMLU-ProX

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.582.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NOVA-63

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.556.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.578.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.587.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMVU

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.580.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.586.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFEval

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    Kimi K2.593.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, GPT-5.5 Pro or Kimi K2.5?

GPT-5.5 Pro has the higher public score estimate, 63.07 versus 55.62, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, GPT-5.5 Pro or Kimi K2.5?

GPT-5.5 Pro is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.5 Pro or Kimi K2.5?

GPT-5.5 Pro scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 60.6 to 46. GPT-5.5 Pro and Kimi K2.5 are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, GPT-5.5 Pro or Kimi K2.5?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.12 on GPT-5.5 Pro and $0.0021 on Kimi K2.5; repository review costs $2.04 and $0.039; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $8.40 and $0.162. GPT-5.5 Pro 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, GPT-5.5 Pro or Kimi K2.5?

GPT-5.5 Pro has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 256K.

Related comparisons

Last updated September 4, 2026

Watch GPT-5.5 Pro vs Kimi K2.5

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.