Model comparison
Inkling vs Kimi K2.5
Head-to-head evidence from 10 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Inkling #17; Kimi K2.5 #22
BenchAlign evidence: Inkling not scored; Kimi K2.5 supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Inkling and Kimi K2.5 share 10 comparable benchmark results. 6 of 8 categories are comparable. 6 results are unique to Inkling; 54 to Kimi K2.5.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 10
- Inkling only
- 6
- Kimi K2.5 only
- 54
- Comparable categories
- 6 / 8
Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Kimi K2.5 only becomes the better choice if instruction following is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 10 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 6 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Inkling is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 69 to 61. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Inkling's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 97.1 against 60.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is BrowseComp, 77.1% to 60.6%. Kimi K2.5 does hit back in instruction following, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Inkling is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.87 input / $4.68 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.60 input / $3.00 output per 1M tokens for Kimi K2.5. Kimi K2.5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Inkling is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Inkling gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Kimi K2.5.
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 | Inkling | Δ | Kimi K2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Inkling97.1 | Margin← 36.5 | Kimi K2.560.6 |
| Agentic | Inkling69.4 | Margin← 14.4 | Kimi K2.555.0 |
| Inst. Following | Inkling79.8 | Margin→ 14.1 | Kimi K2.593.9 |
| Coding | Inkling68.6 | Margin← 9.2 | Kimi K2.559.4 |
| Knowledge | Inkling51.7 | Margin→ 5.5 | Kimi K2.557.2 |
| Multimodal | Inkling76.5 | Margin→ 2.0 | Kimi K2.578.5 |
| Reasoning | InklingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.561.0 |
| Multilingual | InklingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.582.3 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 77.1%B 60.6%Winner: InklingΔ 16.5BrowseComp: Inkling scored 77.1%; Kimi K2.5 scored 60.6%. Inkling wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 46%B 30.1%Winner: InklingΔ 15.9HLE: Inkling scored 46%; Kimi K2.5 scored 30.1%. Inkling wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 63.8%B 50.8%Winner: InklingΔ 13Terminal-Bench 2.0: Inkling scored 63.8%; Kimi K2.5 scored 50.8%. Inkling wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 73.5%B 78.5%Winner: Kimi K2.5Δ 5MMMU-Pro: Inkling scored 73.5%; Kimi K2.5 scored 78.5%. Kimi K2.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 54.3%B 50.7%Winner: InklingΔ 3.6SWE-bench Pro: Inkling scored 54.3%; Kimi K2.5 scored 50.7%. Inkling wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Inkling | Kimi K2.5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 output | Kimi K2.5$0.6 input / $3 output | Kimi K2.5 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | InklingNot available | Kimi K2.545 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | InklingNot available | Kimi K2.52.38 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Inkling1M | Kimi K2.5256K | Inkling lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticInkling wins20 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Kimi K2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.8% | 50.8% | Inkling leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 77.1% | 60.6% | Inkling leads |
| MCP AtlasSource | 74.1% | 29.5% | Inkling leads |
| Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource | 1258 | — | 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-TasksSource | — | 59.1% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 72.7% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 95.9% | 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 | — | 1009 | Not comparable |
CodingInkling wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Kimi K2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 77.6% | 76.8% | Inkling leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 54.3% | 50.7% | Inkling leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | — | 70.8% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 85.0% | 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 |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | — | 34.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 49.0% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 46.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
KnowledgeKimi K2.5 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Kimi K2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 87.9% | 87.6% | Inkling leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 87.9% | 87.6% | Inkling leads |
| HLESource | 46% | 30.1% | Inkling leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 30% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 69.2% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 87.1% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | — | 87.1% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 35.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 87.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 29.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -8.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 34.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 64.6% | Not comparable |
MathInkling wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Kimi K2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 97.1% | 95.8% | Inkling leads |
| AIME 2025Source | — | 96.1% | 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 |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
MultimodalKimi K2.5 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Kimi K2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 73.5% | 78.5% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| CharXivSource | 82% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXiv w/o toolsSource | 78.1% | — | 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 | — | 1284 | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (7)
Which is better, Inkling or Kimi K2.5?
Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 61. The biggest single separator in this matchup is BrowseComp, where the scores are 77.1% and 60.6%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Inkling or Kimi K2.5?
Kimi K2.5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 57.2 versus 51.7. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Inkling or Kimi K2.5?
Inkling has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 68.6 versus 59.4. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Inkling or Kimi K2.5?
Inkling has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 versus 60.6. Inside this category, AIME26 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Inkling or Kimi K2.5?
Inkling has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.4 versus 55. Inside this category, MCP Atlas is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Inkling or Kimi K2.5?
Kimi K2.5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.5 versus 76.5. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for instruction following, Inkling or Kimi K2.5?
Kimi K2.5 has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 93.9 versus 79.8. Inkling stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Related Comparisons
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.