Capability
60.4/100
field median 59.1
#73 of 230 ranked models
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
EstablishedReleased Feb 1, 2026ProprietaryReasoning256K context
Released Feb 1, 2026 — see all recent releases
Decision reading
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) scores 60.4 out of 100 and ranks #73 of 230. This profile shows 9 source-displayable benchmark rows; its strongest eligible category is Coding at #52. API pricing is $0.6 input and $3 output per million tokens.
Data as of September 2, 2026 · How the score is built
Strongest published evidence
Coding ranks #52. Particularly well-suited for software development and code generation tasks.
Validate before choosing
9 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. Independent runtime speed has not been measured.
Decision snapshot
Each value carries a field reference instead of floating alone. Markers compare this model with the current ranked and priced catalog; they are not absolute quality thresholds.
Price
$0.60input / $3 output
input median $1
blended $1.80
Speed
Not measured
field median 90 tok/s
Time to first token not measured
Context
256Ktokens
field median 256,000
Reported for this model; direct source link not stored
Capability shape
Each axis shows percentile within that category’s eligible cohort. The comparison outline is the median of the six nearest public-score peers; a collapsed vertex means the category is not rank-eligible.
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) category percentile values
- Agentic56th percentile
- Coding65th percentile
- ReasoningNot eligible
- KnowledgeNot eligible
- MathNot eligible
- MultilingualNot eligible
- MultimodalNot eligible
- Instruction followingNot eligible
The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.
Eligible category ranks
- Agentic#64/143
- Coding#52/148
- ReasoningNot ranked
- KnowledgeNot ranked
- MathNot ranked
- MultilingualNot ranked
- MultimodalNot ranked
- Inst. FollowingNot ranked
Top decileTop quartileMid-fieldNot eligible
What it costs to get this score
Published API price against the public score. The x-axis uses a log scale; the dashed path marks models that are not beaten by a cheaper, higher-scoring option. Price uses average of published input and output rates.
The chart opens on the current model. Scroll horizontally to inspect the full price axis.
Current modelKimi K2.5 (Reasoning) · 60.4 score · $1.80 blended per million tokens
Horizontal: blended price per million tokens, log scale · Vertical: public score
How much of this is verified
Coverage is split by category so a strong number never hides a thin evidence base. Verified means the row is tied to a published source; provisional rows remain visible but separate.
- Agentic3/3 verified
- Coding2/2 verified
- ReasoningNot measured
- Knowledge2/2 verified
- Math1/1 verified
- MultilingualNot measured
- Multimodal1/1 verified
- Inst. FollowingNot measured
Verified sourceProvisionalNot measured
Spec sheet
Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.
- API model ID
- Not published
- Context window
- 256K
- Maximum output
- Not sourced yet
- Knowledge cutoff
- Not sourced yet
- Input modalities
- Not sourced yet
- Output modalities
- Not sourced yet
- Parameters
- Not disclosed by the provider
- Availability
- Not sourced yet
- Cloud regions
- Not tracked yet
- Lifecycle
- Established
- API capabilities
- Tool calling, structured outputs, and batch support are not tracked yet
- Prompt caching
- Not documented in the pricing record
- Self-host
- Open weights available; hardware estimate not sourced
- Rate limits
- Not tracked yet
Deployment options
Self-host and provider-specific paths stay separate from benchmark evidence so operating constraints are visible before a score becomes the whole decision.
Published weights are available, but BenchLM does not yet have a sourced parameter and VRAM profile for this exact model. Hardware cost estimates stay unavailable until that sizing record is complete.
Estimate VRAM from known parametersCategory score record
Scores and ranks appear only where published evidence can be displayed. The table keeps the score, weight, cohort, and evidence state together.
| Category | Score | Rank | Percentile | Weight | Benchmarks | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AgenticRank #64 of 143Percentile 56thWeight 22%3 benchmarksVerified | 50.5 | #64 of 143 | 56th | 22% | 3 benchmarks | Verified |
| CodingRank #52 of 148Percentile 65thWeight 20%2 benchmarksVerified | 54.9 | #52 of 148 | 65th | 20% | 2 benchmarks | Verified |
| ReasoningWeight 17%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 17% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
| KnowledgeRank Not rankedWeight 12%2 benchmarksVerified | 83.2 | Not ranked | Not available | 12% | 2 benchmarks | Verified |
| MathWeight 5%1 benchmarkVerified | Score pending | Not ranked | Not available | 5% | 1 benchmark | Verified |
| MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 7% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
| MultimodalRank Not rankedWeight 12%1 benchmarkVerified | 61.2 | Not ranked | Not available | 12% | 1 benchmark | Verified |
| Inst. FollowingWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 5% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
Benchmark ledger
Coding opens by default. The marker compares each value with the best source-verified result in the catalog; provisional leaders do not set the reference. Expand the remaining categories for every published row.
Coding2 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSoftware Engineering Benchmark Verified | Score76.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 96% | Gap19.2 behind | WeightWeighted 16% | Provider exact |
| Vibe Code BenchVibe Code Bench v1.1 | Score17.54% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 4.7 · 71.00% | Gap53.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
Agentic3 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | Score50.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 91.9% | Gap41.1 behind | WeightWeighted 38% | Provider exact |
| BrowseComp | Score60.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 92.2% | Gap31.6 behind | WeightWeighted 28% | Provider exact |
| Gert LabsGert Labs Composite Game Benchmark | Score32.58% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 4.8 · 72.97% | Gap40.4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
Knowledge2 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProMassive Multitask Language Understanding Professional | Score87.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 89.6% | Gap2.5 behind | WeightWeighted 30% | Provider exact |
| GPQAGraduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A | Score87.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Sakana Fugu-Ultra · 95.5% | Gap7.9 behind | WeightWeighted 7% | Provider exact |
Math1 row
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AIME 2025American Invitational Mathematics Examination 2025 | Score96.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: MAI-Thinking-1 · 97% | Gap0.9 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Multimodal1 row
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProMassive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding Pro | Score78.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.4 Pro · 94% | Gap15.5 behind | WeightWeighted 45% | Provider exact |
Lineage
The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. A successor's displayed score stays at least 0.1 points above its predecessor; raw benchmark rows do not move. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.
Feb 1, 2026 · you are here
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Score 60.4 · $0.6 / $3
Reasoning
How to read this profile
The visual layer above carries the decisions. These notes preserve the model, ranking, coverage, and family context behind the numbers.
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) ranks #73 of 230 on the public leaderboard with a score of 60.35/100. It does not yet have enough sourced coverage for a verified position.
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) is a proprietary model with a 256K context window. It uses an explicit reasoning mode, which can improve complex problem solving while adding latency and token use.
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) sits in the Kimi K2.5 family with Kimi K2.5. 9 of 416 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.
Its strongest eligible category is Coding at #52, while its lowest eligible position is Agentic at #64. particularly well-suited for software development and code generation tasks.
Frequently asked questions
How does Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) perform overall in AI benchmarks?
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) ranks #73 out of 230 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 60.35/100. Its evidence status is Estimated, and this profile shows 9 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.
Is Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) good for knowledge and understanding?
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has source-displayable benchmark coverage for knowledge and understanding, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.
Is Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) good for coding and programming?
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) ranks #52 out of 148 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 54.9/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Is Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) good for mathematics?
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has source-displayable benchmark coverage for mathematics, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.
Is Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) ranks #64 out of 143 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 50.5/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Is Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) good for multimodal and grounded tasks?
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has source-displayable benchmark coverage for multimodal and grounded tasks, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.
Which sibling models are related to Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) belongs to the Kimi K2.5 family. Related tracked variants include Kimi K2.5. A sibling link indicates shared lineage or a documented configuration relationship; it does not mean the variants have identical pricing, context limits, benchmark evidence, or deployment behavior. Compare before switching.
Does Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?
No. Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) currently has 27 source-displayable rows across 416 tracked benchmark slots. The profile exposes published, non-generated evidence and leaves missing categories blank until an exact evaluation is available. Coverage describes how much was measured; it is not a penalty added to an individual benchmark result.
What is the context window size of Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has a reported context window of 256K in the exact-model catalog record. The value stays visible, but the profile marks its source link as unavailable instead of presenting it as directly documented. Maximum output length remains separate because providers often publish a different limit.
Compare Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) with every tracked model409 comparisons
Last updated September 2, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.
Watch Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) in the weekly brief
Get one weekly email when material rank, price, availability, or benchmark evidence changes are worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.