Model comparison
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 235B 2507
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) #57 (Estimated); Qwen3 235B 2507 #78 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) and Qwen3 235B 2507 share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 25 results are unique to Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning); 2 to Qwen3 235B 2507.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) only
- 25
- Qwen3 235B 2507 only
- 2
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3 235B 2507 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 1 evidence category; 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 (Reasoning) is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 59.35 to 56.02. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)'s sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 87.2 against 78.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 87.6% to 77.5%.
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.60 input / $3.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3 235B 2507. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Qwen3 235B 2507 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.
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 | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Δ | Qwen3 235B 2507 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)87.2 | Margin← 8.3 | Qwen3 235B 250778.9 |
| Agentic | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)55.0 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3 235B 2507Not measured |
| Coding | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)76.8 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3 235B 2507Not measured |
| Multilingual | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3 235B 250779.4 |
| Multimodal | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)78.5 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3 235B 2507Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 87.6%B 77.5%Winner: Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Δ 10.1GPQA: Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) scored 87.6%; Qwen3 235B 2507 scored 77.5%. Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 87.1%B 83%Winner: Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Δ 4.1MMLU-Pro: Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) scored 87.1%; Qwen3 235B 2507 scored 83%. Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Qwen3 235B 2507 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)$0.6 input / $3 output | Qwen3 235B 2507$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3 235B 2507 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Not available | Qwen3 235B 2507Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Not available | Qwen3 235B 2507Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)128K | Qwen3 235B 2507128K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Qwen3 235B 2507 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 50.8% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 60.6% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 11.5% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 32.58% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 21.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 25.4% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1009 | — | Not comparable |
Coding4 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeKimi K2.5 (Reasoning) wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Qwen3 235B 2507 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 87.6% | 77.5% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 87.1% | 83% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| 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 |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 62.6% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Qwen3 235B 2507 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME 2025Source | 96.1% | — | Not comparable |
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Qwen3 235B 2507 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProXSource | — | 79.4% | Not comparable |
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Qwen3 235B 2507 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 70.2% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) or Qwen3 235B 2507?
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 59.35 to 56.02. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 87.6% and 77.5%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) or Qwen3 235B 2507?
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 87.2 versus 78.9. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
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.