Data as of October 17, 2026 · How the score is built
Released Jan 27, 2026256K context
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Decision readingKimi K2.5 (Reasoning) scores 56.1 out of 100 and ranks #63 of 224. This profile shows 15 source-displayable benchmark rows; its strongest eligible category is Multimodal & Grounded at #33. API pricing is $0.6 input and $3 output per million tokens.
Released Jan 27, 2026 — see all recent releases
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.
Capability
56.1/100
field median 49.6#63 of 224 ranked models
Public
#63of 224
Verified —
Price
$0.60input / $3 output
input median $0.75blended $1.80
Speed
Not measured
field median 92 tok/sTime to first token not measured
Context
256Ktokens
field median 256,000Reported for this model; direct source link not stored
Strongest published evidence
Multimodal & Grounded ranks #33. Particularly strong for screenshots, documents, charts, and grounded multimodal workflows.
Validate before choosing
15 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. Independent runtime speed has not been measured.
Source-linked · 15 displayable benchmark rows
Category 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 #71 of 128Percentile 45thWeight 22%4 benchmarksVerified | 38.3 | 4 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| CodingRank Not rankedWeight 20%4 benchmarksVerified | 64.9 | 4 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| ReasoningRank Not rankedWeight 17%1 benchmarkVerified | 67.1 | 1 benchmark | Verified | |||
| MultimodalRank #33 of 54Percentile 40thWeight 12%2 benchmarksVerified | 69.0 | 2 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| KnowledgeRank #85 of 184Percentile 54thWeight 12%2 benchmarksVerified | 48.8 | 2 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| Inst. FollowingWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| MathWeight 5%2 benchmarksVerified | Score pending | 2 benchmarks | Verified |
15 of 681 tracked benchmark slots have displayable evidence · bars run 0–100
Coverage detailsHow 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.
- Agentic4/4 verified
- Coding4/4 verified
- Reasoning1/1 verified
- Multimodal2/2 verified
- Knowledge2/2 verified
- MultilingualNot measured
- Inst. FollowingNot measured
- Math2/2 verified
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
- Agentic45th percentile
- CodingNot eligible
- ReasoningNot eligible
- Multimodal40th percentile
- Knowledge54th percentile
- MultilingualNot eligible
- Instruction followingNot eligible
- MathNot eligible
The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.
Eligible category ranks
- Agentic#71/128
- CodingNot ranked
- ReasoningNot ranked
- Multimodal#33/54
- Knowledge#85/184
- MultilingualNot ranked
- Inst. FollowingNot ranked
- MathNot ranked
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.
Coding4 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | Score50.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.5 · 82.0% | Gap31.2 behind | WeightScored in Agentic | Provider exact |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSoftware Engineering Benchmark Verified | Score76.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 96% | Gap19.2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| LiveCodeBench v6 | Score85.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Sakana Fugu-Ultra · 93.2% | Gap8.2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Vibe Code BenchVibe Code Bench v1.1 | Score17.54% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 4 Argon · 91.90% | Gap74.4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
Agentic4 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BrowseComp | Score60.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Atria Dawn Preview · 92.5% | Gap31.9 behind | Weight8% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | Score50.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.5 · 82% | Gap31.2 behind | Weight7% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| OSWorld-Verified | Score63.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 86.1% | Gap22.8 behind | Weight7% ref. weight | Benchmark 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 |
Reasoning1 row
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LongBench v2 | Score61% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8 · 67.6% | Gap6.6 behind | WeightWeighted 25% | Provider exact |
Multimodal2 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProMassive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding Pro | Score78.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 3.5 Flash · 83.6% | Gap5.1 behind | WeightWeighted 40% | Provider exact |
| CharXivCharXiv Reasoning | Score77.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 93.5% | Gap16 behind | WeightWeighted 20% | Provider 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 | Weight6% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| GPQAGraduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A | Score87.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 96% | Gap8.4 behind | Weight3% ref. weight | Provider exact |
Math2 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AIME 2025American Invitational Mathematics Examination 2025 | Score96.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.2 · 100% | Gap3.9 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| HMMT Feb 2025Harvard-MIT Mathematics Tournament February 2025 | Score95.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GLM-4.7 · 97.1% | Gap1.7 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Bars run 0–100; the dark tick marks the best source-verified value
All 15 rowsWhat 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.
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) · 56.1 score · $1.80 blended per million tokens
The chart opens on the current model. Scroll horizontally to inspect the full price axis.
Horizontal: blended price per million tokens, log scale · Vertical: public score
Lineage
The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. Each score is estimated for that model; a relative can inform a sparse estimate but never sets a floor, so a newer release can score below an earlier one. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.
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
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 #63 of 224 on the public leaderboard with a score of 56.09/100. 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. 15 of 681 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.
Its strongest eligible category is Multimodal & Grounded at #33, while its lowest eligible position is Knowledge at #85. particularly strong for screenshots, documents, charts, and grounded multimodal workflows.
Last updated October 17, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.
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 parametersQuestions
How does Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) perform overall in AI benchmarks?
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) ranks #63 out of 224 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 56.09/100. Its evidence status is Estimated, and this profile shows 15 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) ranks #85 out of 184 eligible models for knowledge and understanding, with a public category score of 48.8/100. 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 coding and programming?
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has source-displayable benchmark coverage for coding and programming, 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 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 reasoning and logic?
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has source-displayable benchmark coverage for reasoning and logic, 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 #71 out of 128 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 38.3/100. 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) ranks #33 out of 54 eligible models for multimodal and grounded tasks, with a public category score of 69/100. 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.
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 31 source-displayable rows across 681 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.