Compare · ModelsLive · 3 picked · head to head
GLM 5 vs Kimi K2.5 vs Step 3.5 Flash
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
Kimi K2.5 wins on 15/24 benchmarks
Kimi K2.5 wins 15 of 24 shared benchmarks. Leads in math · knowledge · language.
Category leads
math·Kimi K2.5knowledge·Kimi K2.5language·Kimi K2.5coding·GLM 5speed·Kimi K2.5agentic·GLM 5reasoning·Kimi K2.5arena·GLM 5general·Kimi K2.5
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
GLM 5
#79 by perf·#3 by attention
Kimi K2.5
#122 by perf·#17 by attention
Step 3.5 Flash
#8 by perf·no signal
Best value
Step 3.5 Flash
8.8x better value than GLM 5
GLM 5
43.7 pts/$
$1.26/M
Kimi K2.5
37.0 pts/$
$1.35/M
Step 3.5 Flash
384.5 pts/$
$0.20/M
Vendor risk
Mixed exposure
One or more vendors flagged
z-ai
private · undisclosed
Moonshot AI
$18.0B·Tier 1
StepFun
$5.0B·Tier 1
Head to head
24 benchmarks · 3 models
GLM 5Kimi K2.5Step 3.5 Flash
OpenCompass · AIME2025
GLM 5 leads by +0.1
GLM 5
95.8
Kimi K2.5
91.9
Step 3.5 Flash
95.7
OpenCompass · GPQA-Diamond
Kimi K2.5 leads by +2.8
GLM 5
85.3
Kimi K2.5
88.1
Step 3.5 Flash
83.7
OpenCompass · HLE
Kimi K2.5 leads by +0.5
GLM 5
28.1
Kimi K2.5
28.6
Step 3.5 Flash
21.6
OpenCompass · IFEval
Kimi K2.5 leads by +0.7
GLM 5
93.2
Kimi K2.5
93.9
Step 3.5 Flash
93.2
OpenCompass · LiveCodeBenchV6
GLM 5 leads by +2.3
GLM 5
86.2
Kimi K2.5
80.6
Step 3.5 Flash
83.9
OpenCompass · MMLU-Pro
Kimi K2.5 leads by +1.0
GLM 5
85.2
Kimi K2.5
86.2
Step 3.5 Flash
83.5
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index
Kimi K2.5 leads by +6.9
Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?"
Kimi K2.5
58.9
Step 3.5 Flash
52.0
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index
Kimi K2.5 leads by +7.9
Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads.
Kimi K2.5
39.5
Step 3.5 Flash
31.6
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
Kimi K2.5 leads by +9.0
Kimi K2.5
46.8
Step 3.5 Flash
37.8
APEX-Agents
GLM 5 leads by +2.8
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
GLM 5
17.2
Kimi K2.5
14.4
ARC-AGI
Kimi K2.5 leads by +20.7
ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization.
GLM 5
44.7
Kimi K2.5
65.3
ARC-AGI-2
Kimi K2.5 leads by +7.0
ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data.
GLM 5
4.9
Kimi K2.5
11.8
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
GLM 5 leads by +64.3
GLM 5
1457.6
Step 3.5 Flash
1393.3
Chess Puzzles
Kimi K2.5 leads by +2.1
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
GLM 5
5.3
Kimi K2.5
7.4
Cl Bench
Kimi K2.5 leads by +0.6
GLM 5
18.7
Kimi K2.5
19.3
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
Kimi K2.5 leads by +20.1
FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning.
GLM 5
28.8
Kimi K2.5
49.0
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
Kimi K2.5 leads by +3.5
FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning.
GLM 5
3.5
Kimi K2.5
7.0
GPQA diamond
GLM 5 leads by +0.3
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
GLM 5
83.8
Kimi K2.5
83.5
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
Kimi K2.5 leads by +12.2
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
GLM 5
80.0
Kimi K2.5
92.2
PostTrainBench
GLM 5 leads by +3.6
GLM 5
13.9
Kimi K2.5
10.3
SimpleBench
GLM 5 leads by +7.7
SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking.
GLM 5
43.8
Kimi K2.5
36.2
SWE-Bench verified
Kimi K2.5 leads by +1.7
SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability.
GLM 5
72.1
Kimi K2.5
73.8
Terminal Bench
GLM 5 leads by +9.2
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 5
52.4
Kimi K2.5
43.2
WeirdML
GLM 5 leads by +2.6
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
GLM 5
48.2
Kimi K2.5
45.6
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | GLM 5 | Kimi K2.5 | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
OpenCompass · AIME2025 | 95.8 | 91.9 | 95.7 |
OpenCompass · GPQA-Diamond | 85.3 | 88.1 | 83.7 |
OpenCompass · HLE | 28.1 | 28.6 | 21.6 |
OpenCompass · IFEval | 93.2 | 93.9 | 93.2 |
OpenCompass · LiveCodeBenchV6 | 86.2 | 80.6 | 83.9 |
OpenCompass · MMLU-Pro | 85.2 | 86.2 | 83.5 |
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?" | — | 58.9 | 52.0 |
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads. | — | 39.5 | 31.6 |
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index | — | 46.8 | 37.8 |
APEX-Agents APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments. | 17.2 | 14.4 | — |
ARC-AGI ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization. | 44.7 | 65.3 | — |
ARC-AGI-2 ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data. | 4.9 | 11.8 | — |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall | 1457.6 | — | 1393.3 |
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | 5.3 | 7.4 | — |
Cl Bench | 18.7 | 19.3 | — |
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. | 28.8 | 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. | 3.5 | 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. | 83.8 | 83.5 | — |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 80.0 | 92.2 | — |
PostTrainBench | 13.9 | 10.3 | — |
SimpleBench SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking. | 43.8 | 36.2 | — |
SWE-Bench verified SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability. | 72.1 | 73.8 | — |
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. | 52.4 | 43.2 | — |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 48.2 | 45.6 | — |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
| Model | Input | Output | Context | Projected $/mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $0.60 | $1.92 | 205K tokens (~102 books) | $9.30 | |
| $0.45 | $2.25 | 262K tokens (~131 books) | $9.00 | |
| $0.10 | $0.30 | 262K tokens (~131 books) | $1.50 |