Model comparison
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) vs Qwen3.5 397B
Head-to-head evidence from 24 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) #57 (Estimated); Qwen3.5 397B #71 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) and Qwen3.5 397B share 24 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning); 31 to Qwen3.5 397B.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 24
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) only
- 3
- Qwen3.5 397B only
- 31
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 397B only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 24 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 4 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) has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 59.35 versus 57.01. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)'s sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 87.2 against 56.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 50.8% to 52.5%. Qwen3.5 397B does hit back in agentic, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen3.5 397B is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.60 input / $3.60 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.60 input / $3.00 output per 1M tokens for Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning). Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Qwen3.5 397B 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 | Qwen3.5 397B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)87.2 | Margin← 30.6 | Qwen3.5 397B56.6 |
| Coding | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)76.8 | Margin← 10.3 | Qwen3.5 397B66.5 |
| Agentic | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)55.0 | Margin→ 1.5 | Qwen3.5 397B56.5 |
| Multimodal | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)78.5 | Margin→ 1.1 | Qwen3.5 397B79.6 |
| Reasoning | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B63.2 |
| Math | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B90.6 |
| Multilingual | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B84.7 |
| Inst. Following | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B92.6 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 50.8%B 52.5%Winner: Qwen3.5 397BΔ 1.7Terminal-Bench 2.0: Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) scored 50.8%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 52.5%. Qwen3.5 397B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 60.6%B 62%Winner: Qwen3.5 397BΔ 1.4BrowseComp: Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) scored 60.6%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 62%. Qwen3.5 397B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 87.6%B 88.4%Winner: Qwen3.5 397BΔ 0.8GPQA: Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) scored 87.6%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 88.4%. Qwen3.5 397B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 87.1%B 87.8%Winner: Qwen3.5 397BΔ 0.7MMLU-Pro: Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) scored 87.1%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 87.8%. Qwen3.5 397B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 76.8%B 76.2%Winner: Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Δ 0.6SWE-bench Verified: Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) scored 76.8%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 76.2%. 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) | Qwen3.5 397B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)$0.6 input / $3 output | Qwen3.5 397B$0.6 input / $3.6 output | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Not available | Qwen3.5 397B96 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Not available | Qwen3.5 397B2.44 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)128K | Qwen3.5 397B128K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticQwen3.5 397B wins18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 50.8% | 52.5% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 60.6% | 62% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 11.5% | 15.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95.9% | 95.6% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 32.58% | 46.76% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 21.7% | 19.9% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 25.4% | 23.1% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1009 | 962 | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 56.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 51.8% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 68.4% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 43.7% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 37.6% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 36.3% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 46.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 74.2% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 74.0% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 14.2% | Not comparable |
CodingKimi K2.5 (Reasoning) wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 76.8% | 76.2% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 17.54% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 49.0% | 42.0% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 46.8% | 48.2% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 83.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 50.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeKimi K2.5 (Reasoning) wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 87.6% | 88.4% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 87.1% | 87.8% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 35.4% | 33.7% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 87.9% | 89.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 29.4% | 27.3% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -8.1% | -29.8% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 34.3% | 31.4% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 64.6% | 89.1% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 70.4% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.9% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 28.7% | Not comparable |
Math6 benchmarks
Multilingual2 benchmarks
MultimodalQwen3.5 397B wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 78.5% | 79% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 75.4% | 77.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1282 | — | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 88.6% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.7% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 65.6% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 95.8% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) or Qwen3.5 397B?
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 59.35 to 57.01. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 50.8% and 52.5%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) or Qwen3.5 397B?
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 87.2 versus 56.6. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) or Qwen3.5 397B?
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 76.8 versus 66.5. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 56.5 versus 55. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79.6 versus 78.5. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro 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.