Agentic
Like-for-like- Inkling-Small
- 70.1
- Kimi K2.5
- 55.0
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Inkling-Small leads
Model comparison
Inkling-Small vs Kimi K2.5
Updated July 30, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
12 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.
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Inkling-Small
Inkling-Small leads on the same 2 weighted benchmark rows.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Inkling-Small
Inkling-Small has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Inkling-Small
Inkling-Small has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Inkling-Small
Inkling-Small has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Kimi K2.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Inkling-Small
Inkling-Small 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
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are 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.
8 Inkling-Small only
12 Shared
33 Kimi K2.5 only
- Shared results
- 12
- Inkling-Small only
- 8
- Kimi K2.5 only
- 33
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
4 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.
Coding
Directional only- Inkling-Small
- 62.4
- Kimi K2.5
- 59.4
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 4 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Inkling-Small
- 53.4
- Kimi K2.5
- 56.9
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 4 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Math
Directional only- Inkling-Small
- 92.9
- Kimi K2.5
- 60.6
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 4 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Directional only- Inkling-Small
- 76.6
- Kimi K2.5
- 78.5
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Inkling-Small
- 40.1
- Kimi K2.5
- 61.0
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Inkling-Small
- Not measured
- Kimi K2.5
- 82.3
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Inkling-Small
- 82.2
- Kimi K2.5
- 93.9
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Inkling-Small | Kimi K2.5 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 70.1 | 55.0 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Inkling-Small leads |
| Coding | 62.4 | 59.4 | Directional only3 vs 4 rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 53.4 | 56.9 | Directional only2 vs 4 rows | Directional only |
| Math | 92.9 | 60.6 | Directional only2 vs 4 rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 76.6 | 78.5 | Directional only2 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 40.1 | 61.0 | Not comparable1 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | 82.3 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 82.2 | 93.9 | Not comparable1 vs 1 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.
HLE
Knowledge
BrowseComp
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
MMMU-Pro
Multimodal
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
- Inkling-Small
- $0.0013
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K2.5
- $0.0021
- Fits in one request
Inkling-Small has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Inkling-Small
- $0.03332
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K2.5
- $0.039
- Fits in one request
Inkling-Small has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Inkling-Small
- $0.0492
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K2.5
- $0.162
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Inkling-Small has the lower modeled cost
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.
SpecificationInkling-SmallKimi K2.5
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Inkling-Small
1M
Kimi K2.5
256K
API model ID
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Kimi K2.5
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Inkling-Small
$0.116 per 1M cached input tokens
Kimi K2.5
Not published
Documented inputs
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Kimi K2.5
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Kimi K2.5
Not sourced
Provider availability
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Kimi K2.5
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Inkling-Small
Hybrid
Kimi K2.5
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
Kimi K2.5
Open Weight
License
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
Kimi K2.5
Open Weight
Release date
Inkling-Small
2026-07-30
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
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.03332 vs $0.039. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.0492 vs $0.162.
- Context tradeoff
- Inkling-Small has the larger documented window (1M).
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.
Inkling-Small
API / mo$1,515
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
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence53 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Inkling-Small64.7%SourceKimi K2.550.8%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
BrowseComp
Inkling-Small77.4%SourceKimi K2.560.6%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
MCP Atlas
Inkling-Small79.6%SourceKimi K2.529.5%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
Toolathlon-Verified
Inkling-Small54.4%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Inkling-Small—Kimi K2.552.3%SourceNot directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Inkling-Small—Kimi K2.554.3%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Inkling-Small—Kimi K2.565.7%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Inkling-Small—Kimi K2.577.1%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Inkling-Small—Kimi K2.514.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon
Inkling-Small—Kimi K2.527.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP-Tasks
Inkling-Small—Kimi K2.559.1%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
Inkling-Small—Kimi K2.572.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
Inkling-Small—Kimi K2.545.88%SourceNot directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Inkling-Small—Kimi K2.514.0%SourceNot directly comparable
JobBench
Inkling-Small—Kimi K2.58.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Inkling-Small80.2%SourceKimi K2.576.8%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Inkling-Small55.9%SourceKimi K2.550.7%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Inkling-Small64.7%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
SciCode
Inkling-Small48.7%SourceKimi K2.548.7%SourceTie
SWE-bench Verified*
Inkling-Small—Kimi K2.570.8%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Inkling-Small—Kimi K2.585.0%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Inkling-Small—Kimi K2.573%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-Rebench
Inkling-Small—Kimi K2.558.5%SourceNot directly comparable
React Native Evals
Inkling-Small—Kimi K2.577.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA
Inkling-Small89.5%SourceKimi K2.587.6%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
GPQA-D
Inkling-Small89.5%SourceKimi K2.587.6%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
HLE
Inkling-Small47.8%SourceKimi K2.530.1%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Inkling-Small31.6%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Inkling-Small—Kimi K2.569.2%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Inkling-Small—Kimi K2.587.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)
Inkling-Small—Kimi K2.587.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
AIME26
Inkling-Small95.5%SourceKimi K2.595.8%SourceKimi K2.5 leads this result
HMMT Feb 2026
Inkling-Small90.2%SourceKimi K2.587.1%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
AIME 2025
Inkling-Small—Kimi K2.596.1%SourceNot directly comparable
AIME25 (Arcee)
Inkling-Small—Kimi K2.596.3%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
Inkling-Small—Kimi K2.595.4%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Inkling-Small—Kimi K2.591.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Inkling-Small—Kimi K2.581.8%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Inkling-Small—Kimi K2.527.900%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Inkling-Small—Kimi K2.54.200%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
Inkling-Small74%SourceKimi K2.578.5%SourceKimi K2.5 leads this result
CharXiv
Inkling-Small81.3%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Inkling-Small77.4%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
Video-MME
Inkling-Small—Kimi K2.587.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MMVU
Inkling-Small—Kimi K2.580.4%SourceNot directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Inkling-Small—Kimi K2.586.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Inkling-Small or Kimi K2.5?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Inkling-Small or Kimi K2.5?
The current coding 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 is better for agentic tasks, Inkling-Small or Kimi K2.5?
Inkling-Small leads the like-for-like agentic tasks comparison across 2 shared weighted benchmark rows.
Which costs less, Inkling-Small or Kimi K2.5?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0013 on Inkling-Small and $0.0021 on Kimi K2.5; repository review costs $0.03332 and $0.039; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.0492 and $0.162. Kimi K2.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Inkling-Small or Kimi K2.5?
Inkling-Small has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.
Related comparisons
Last updated July 30, 2026
Watch Inkling-Small vs Kimi K2.5
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.