Agentic
Like-for-like- Inkling
- 69.4
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- 55.0
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Inkling leads
Inkling vs Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Updated August 29, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Inkling has the higher public score estimate, 67.02 versus 60.14, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
5 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
Inkling leads on the same 2 weighted benchmark rows.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Inkling
Inkling has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) 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
Inkling has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) 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
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) 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.
10 Inkling only
5 Shared
4 Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) only
- Shared results
- 5
- Inkling only
- 10
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) only
- 4
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
3 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
- 68.6
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- 76.8
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Inkling
- 51.6
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- 87.2
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Directional only- Inkling
- 76.5
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- 78.5
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Inkling
- Not measured
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Inkling
- 97.1
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Inkling
- Not measured
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Inkling
- 79.8
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Inkling | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 69.4 | 55.0 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Inkling leads |
| Coding | 68.6 | 76.8 | Directional only2 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 51.6 | 87.2 | Directional only2 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 76.5 | 78.5 | Directional only2 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 97.1 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 79.8 | Not measured | Not comparable1 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.
BrowseComp
Agentic
Inkling: 77.1%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning): 60.6%Normalized gap 16.5Inkling source Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) sourceTerminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Inkling: 63.8%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning): 50.8%Normalized gap 13.0Inkling source Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) sourceMMMU-Pro
Multimodal
Inkling: 73.5%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning): 78.5%Normalized gap 5.0Inkling source Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) sourceSWE-bench Verified
Coding
Inkling: 77.6%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning): 76.8%Normalized gap 0.8Inkling source Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) sourceGPQA
Knowledge
Inkling: 87.9%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning): 87.6%Normalized gap 0.3Inkling 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
- Inkling
- $0.00421
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- $0.0021
- Fits in one request
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Inkling
- $0.10754
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- $0.039
- Fits in one request
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) 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
- $0.159
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- $0.162
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Inkling has the lower modeled cost
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) 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.
SpecificationInklingKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Inkling
1M
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
256K
API model ID
Inkling
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.
Inkling
$0.374 per 1M cached input tokens
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Not published
Documented inputs
Inkling
Not sourced
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Inkling
Not sourced
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Not sourced
Provider availability
Inkling
Not sourced
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Inkling
Hybrid
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Reasoning
Weight access
Inkling
Open Weight
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Proprietary
License
Inkling
Open Weight
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Proprietary
Release date
Inkling
2026-07-15
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
- Inkling has the higher public score estimate, 67.02 versus 60.14, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.10754 vs $0.039. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.159 vs $0.162.
- Context tradeoff
- Inkling has the larger documented window (1M).
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 evidence19 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Inkling63.8%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)50.8%SourceInkling leads this result
BrowseComp
Inkling77.1%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)60.6%SourceInkling leads this result
MCP Atlas
Inkling74.1%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Inkling—Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)32.58%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Inkling77.6%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)76.8%SourceInkling leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Inkling54.3%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Inkling63.8%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Inkling—Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)17.54%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Inkling87.9%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)87.6%SourceInkling leads this result
GPQA-D
Inkling87.9%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
HLE
Inkling46%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Inkling30%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Inkling—Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)87.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
Multimodal
Instruction following
IFBench
Inkling79.8%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Inkling or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?
Inkling has the higher public score estimate, 67.02 versus 60.14, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Inkling or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?
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 or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?
Inkling leads the like-for-like agentic tasks comparison across 2 shared weighted benchmark rows.
Which costs less, Inkling or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00421 on Inkling and $0.0021 on Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning); repository review costs $0.10754 and $0.039; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.159 and $0.162. Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Inkling or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?
Inkling has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 29, 2026
Watch Inkling 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.