Coding
Like-for-like- Hy3 Preview
- 74.4
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- 76.8
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads
Model comparison
Hy3 Preview vs Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Updated August 7, 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 42.8, 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.
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.
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads on the same 1 weighted benchmark row.
Confidence: limited
Show secondary and unsupported calls
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
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
2 Hy3 Preview only
4 Shared
5 Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) only
- Shared results
- 4
- Hy3 Preview only
- 2
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) only
- 5
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 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.
Agentic
Directional only- Hy3 Preview
- 54.4
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- 55.0
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Hy3 Preview
- 87.2
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- 87.2
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Hy3 Preview
- Not measured
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Hy3 Preview
- Not measured
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Hy3 Preview
- Not measured
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Hy3 Preview
- Not measured
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- 78.5
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Hy3 Preview
- Not measured
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Hy3 Preview | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 74.4 | 76.8 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| Agentic | 54.4 | 55.0 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 87.2 | 87.2 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | 78.5 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 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
Hy3 Preview: 54.4%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning): 50.8%Normalized gap 3.6Hy3 Preview source Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) sourceSWE-bench Verified
Coding
Hy3 Preview: 74.4%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning): 76.8%Normalized gap 2.4Hy3 Preview source Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) sourceGPQA
Knowledge
Hy3 Preview: 87.2%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning): 87.6%Normalized gap 0.4Hy3 Preview source Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) source
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
- Hy3 Preview
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- $0.0021
- Fits in one request
Hy3 Preview has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Hy3 Preview
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- $0.039
- Fits in one request
Hy3 Preview has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Hy3 Preview
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- $0.162
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Hy3 Preview has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationHy3 PreviewKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Hy3 Preview
256K
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
256K
API model ID
Hy3 Preview
Not sourced
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Hy3 Preview
No comparable hosted API rate
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Not published
Documented inputs
Hy3 Preview
Not sourced
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Hy3 Preview
Not sourced
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Not sourced
Provider availability
Hy3 Preview
Not sourced
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Hy3 Preview
Reasoning
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Reasoning
Weight access
Hy3 Preview
Open Weight
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Proprietary
License
Hy3 Preview
Open Weight
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Proprietary
Release date
Hy3 Preview
2026-04-23
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
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
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has the higher public score estimate, 58.53 versus 42.8, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 256K.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence11 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Hy3 Preview54.4%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)50.8%SourceHy3 Preview leads this result
Gert Labs
Shared sourceHy3 Preview36.91%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)32.58%Hy3 Preview leads this result
BrowseComp
Hy3 Preview—Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)60.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Knowledge
Math
AIME 2025
Hy3 Preview—Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)96.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
Hy3 Preview—Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)78.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Hy3 Preview or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has the higher public score estimate, 58.53 versus 42.8, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Hy3 Preview or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads the like-for-like coding comparison across 1 shared weighted benchmark row.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Hy3 Preview or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?
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, Hy3 Preview or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Hy3 Preview or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?
Both models list the same context window, 256K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 7, 2026
Watch Hy3 Preview vs Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.