Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Grok Code Fast 1 vs Kimi K2.5

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

38.64/100
Margin
21.0pts
winning →
Kimi K2.5
Moonshot AI
59.66/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Grok Code Fast 1 #180 (Supported); Kimi K2.5 #54 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Grok Code Fast 1 and Kimi K2.5 share 12 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Grok Code Fast 1; 51 to Kimi K2.5.

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
12
Grok Code Fast 1 only
0
Kimi K2.5 only
51
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Kimi K2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok Code Fast 1 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 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 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 59.66 to 38.64. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Kimi K2.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.60 input / $3.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.50 output per 1M tokens for Grok Code Fast 1. That is roughly 2.0x on output cost alone.

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 Grok Code Fast 1 and Kimi K2.5
CategoryGrok Code Fast 1ΔKimi K2.5
CodingGrok Code Fast 170.8Margin← 11.4Kimi K2.559.4
AgenticGrok Code Fast 1Not measuredMarginNo overlapKimi K2.555.0
ReasoningGrok Code Fast 1Not measuredMarginNo overlapKimi K2.561.0
KnowledgeGrok Code Fast 1Not measuredMarginNo overlapKimi K2.556.9
MathGrok Code Fast 1Not measuredMarginNo overlapKimi K2.560.6
MultilingualGrok Code Fast 1Not measuredMarginNo overlapKimi K2.582.3
MultimodalGrok Code Fast 1Not measuredMarginNo overlapKimi K2.578.5
Inst. FollowingGrok Code Fast 1Not measuredMarginNo overlapKimi K2.593.9

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Grok Code Fast 1B · Kimi K2.5

  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 70.8%B 76.8%
    Winner: Kimi K2.5Δ 6
    SWE-bench Verified: Grok Code Fast 1 scored 70.8%; Kimi K2.5 scored 76.8%. Kimi K2.5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricGrok Code Fast 1Kimi K2.5Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGrok Code Fast 1$0.2 input / $1.5 outputKimi K2.5$0.6 input / $3 outputGrok Code Fast 1 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondGrok Code Fast 1172 tok/sKimi K2.545 tok/sGrok Code Fast 1 has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGrok Code Fast 12.81 sKimi K2.52.38 sKimi K2.5 reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGrok Code Fast 1256KKimi K2.5256KListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGrok Code Fast 1Kimi K2.5Result
τ²-bench resultsSource 75.7%95.9%Kimi K2.5 leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —50.8%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource —60.6%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —52.3%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —54.3%Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource —65.7%Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource —77.1%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —14.4%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —27.8%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —29.5%Not comparable
MCP-TasksSource —59.1%Not comparable
WideResearchSource —72.7%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —11.5%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —45.88%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —14.0%Not comparable
JobBenchSource —8.7%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —21.7%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —25.4%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1009Not comparable
CodingGrok Code Fast 1 wins
BenchmarkGrok Code Fast 1Kimi K2.5Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 70.8%76.8%Kimi K2.5 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 36.2%49.0%Kimi K2.5 leads
SWE-bench Verified*Source —70.8%Not comparable
LiveCodeBench v6Source —85.0%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —50.7%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —73%Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource —58.5%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource —77.2%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —48.7%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —46.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGrok Code Fast 1Kimi K2.5Result
AA-LCRSource 48.3%65.3%Kimi K2.5 leads
CritPtSource 0.0%3.1%Kimi K2.5 leads
LongBench v2Source —61%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkGrok Code Fast 1Kimi K2.5Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 21.6%35.4%Kimi K2.5 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 72.7%87.9%Kimi K2.5 leads
AA-HLESource 7.5%29.4%Kimi K2.5 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -36.0%-8.1%Kimi K2.5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 23.8%34.3%Kimi K2.5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 78.5%64.6%Kimi K2.5 leads
GPQASource —87.6%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —87.6%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —69.2%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —87.1%Not comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source —87.1%Not comparable
HLESource —30.1%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkGrok Code Fast 1Kimi K2.5Result
AIME 2025Source —96.1%Not comparable
AIME26Source —95.8%Not comparable
AIME25 (Arcee)Source —96.3%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2025Source —95.4%Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source —91.1%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —87.1%Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource —81.8%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source —27.900%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source —4.200%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkGrok Code Fast 1Kimi K2.5Result
MMLU-ProXSource —82.3%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —56.0%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGrok Code Fast 1Kimi K2.5Result
MMMU-ProSource —78.5%Not comparable
Video-MMESource —87.4%Not comparable
MMVUSource —80.4%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —86.6%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —75.4%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource —1282Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGrok Code Fast 1Kimi K2.5Result
AA-IFBenchSource 41.4%70.2%Kimi K2.5 leads
IFEvalSource —93.9%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Grok Code Fast 1 or Kimi K2.5?

Kimi K2.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 59.66 to 38.64. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 70.8% and 76.8%.

Which is better for coding, Grok Code Fast 1 or Kimi K2.5?

Grok Code Fast 1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.8 versus 59.4. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

Grok Code Fast 1
API / mo$1,275
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

Related Comparisons

Explore More

xAI Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
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.