Compare · ModelsLive · 2 picked · head to head
GLM 4.7 vs Kimi K2.5
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
Kimi K2.5 wins on 15/18 benchmarks
Kimi K2.5 wins 15 of 18 shared benchmarks. Leads in agentic · knowledge · general.
Category leads
agentic·Kimi K2.5knowledge·Kimi K2.5general·Kimi K2.5math·Kimi K2.5language·Kimi K2.5coding·GLM 4.7reasoning·GLM 4.7
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
GLM 4.7
#152 by perf·#3 by attention
Kimi K2.5
#122 by perf·#17 by attention
Best value
Kimi K2.5
1.1x better value than GLM 4.7
GLM 4.7
32.9 pts/$
$1.40/M
Kimi K2.5
37.0 pts/$
$1.35/M
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
z-ai
private · undisclosed
Moonshot AI
$18.0B·Tier 1
Head to head
18 benchmarks · 2 models
GLM 4.7Kimi K2.5
APEX-Agents
Kimi K2.5 leads by +11.3
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
GLM 4.7
3.1
Kimi K2.5
14.4
Chess Puzzles
Kimi K2.5 leads by +6.3
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
GLM 4.7
1.1
Kimi K2.5
7.4
Cl Bench
Kimi K2.5 leads by +3.4
GLM 4.7
15.9
Kimi K2.5
19.3
Cl Bench Life
Kimi K2.5 leads by +2.3
GLM 4.7
10.9
Kimi K2.5
13.2
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
Kimi K2.5 leads by +44.7
FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning.
GLM 4.7
4.3
Kimi K2.5
49.0
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
Kimi K2.5 leads by +7.0
FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning.
GLM 4.7
0.0
Kimi K2.5
7.0
GPQA diamond
Kimi K2.5 leads by +5.7
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
GLM 4.7
77.8
Kimi K2.5
83.5
OpenCompass · AIME2025
GLM 4.7 leads by +3.5
GLM 4.7
95.4
Kimi K2.5
91.9
OpenCompass · GPQA-Diamond
Kimi K2.5 leads by +1.2
GLM 4.7
86.9
Kimi K2.5
88.1
OpenCompass · HLE
Kimi K2.5 leads by +3.2
GLM 4.7
25.4
Kimi K2.5
28.6
OpenCompass · IFEval
Kimi K2.5 leads by +3.7
GLM 4.7
90.2
Kimi K2.5
93.9
OpenCompass · LiveCodeBenchV6
GLM 4.7 leads by +3.2
GLM 4.7
83.8
Kimi K2.5
80.6
OpenCompass · MMLU-Pro
Kimi K2.5 leads by +2.2
GLM 4.7
84.0
Kimi K2.5
86.2
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
Kimi K2.5 leads by +8.9
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
GLM 4.7
83.3
Kimi K2.5
92.2
PostTrainBench
Kimi K2.5 leads by +2.8
GLM 4.7
7.5
Kimi K2.5
10.3
SimpleBench
GLM 4.7 leads by +1.1
SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking.
GLM 4.7
37.2
Kimi K2.5
36.2
SimpleQA Verified
Kimi K2.5 leads by +2.1
SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information.
GLM 4.7
32.2
Kimi K2.5
34.3
Terminal Bench
Kimi K2.5 leads by +9.8
Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 69.4%, demonstrating significant agentic terminal competence.
GLM 4.7
33.4
Kimi K2.5
43.2
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | GLM 4.7 | Kimi K2.5 |
|---|---|---|
APEX-Agents APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments. | 3.1 | 14.4 |
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | 1.1 | 7.4 |
Cl Bench | 15.9 | 19.3 |
Cl Bench Life | 10.9 | 13.2 |
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning. | 4.3 | 49.0 |
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning. | 0.0 | 7.0 |
GPQA diamond Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs. | 77.8 | 83.5 |
OpenCompass · AIME2025 | 95.4 | 91.9 |
OpenCompass · GPQA-Diamond | 86.9 | 88.1 |
OpenCompass · HLE | 25.4 | 28.6 |
OpenCompass · IFEval | 90.2 | 93.9 |
OpenCompass · LiveCodeBenchV6 | 83.8 | 80.6 |
OpenCompass · MMLU-Pro | 84.0 | 86.2 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 83.3 | 92.2 |
PostTrainBench | 7.5 | 10.3 |
SimpleBench SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking. | 37.2 | 36.2 |
SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information. | 32.2 | 34.3 |
Terminal Bench Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 69.4%, demonstrating significant agentic terminal competence. | 33.4 | 43.2 |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens