Compare · ModelsLive · 3 picked · head to head
Kimi K2.5 vs GLM 5 vs Step 3.5 Flash
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
Kimi K2.5 wins on 14/22 benchmarks
Kimi K2.5 wins 14 of 22 shared benchmarks. Leads in math · knowledge · language.
Category leads
math·Kimi K2.5knowledge·Kimi K2.5language·Kimi K2.5coding·GLM 5speed·Kimi K2.5reasoning·Kimi K2.5arena·GLM 5
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Kimi K2.5
#87 by perf·no signal
GLM 5
#55 by perf·#27 by attention
Step 3.5 Flash
#9 by perf·#11 by attention
Best value
Step 3.5 Flash
8.4x better value than GLM 5
Kimi K2.5
42.6 pts/$
$1.22/M
GLM 5
45.7 pts/$
$1.26/M
Step 3.5 Flash
384.5 pts/$
$0.20/M
Vendor risk
Mixed exposure
One or more vendors flagged
moonshotai
private · undisclosed
z-ai
private · undisclosed
StepFun
$5.0B·Tier 1
Head to head
22 benchmarks · 3 models
Kimi K2.5GLM 5Step 3.5 Flash
OpenCompass · AIME2025
GLM 5 leads by +0.1
Kimi K2.5
91.9
GLM 5
95.8
Step 3.5 Flash
95.7
OpenCompass · GPQA-Diamond
Kimi K2.5 leads by +2.8
Kimi K2.5
88.1
GLM 5
85.3
Step 3.5 Flash
83.7
OpenCompass · HLE
Kimi K2.5 leads by +0.5
Kimi K2.5
28.6
GLM 5
28.1
Step 3.5 Flash
21.6
OpenCompass · IFEval
Kimi K2.5 leads by +0.7
Kimi K2.5
93.9
GLM 5
93.2
Step 3.5 Flash
93.2
OpenCompass · LiveCodeBenchV6
GLM 5 leads by +2.3
Kimi K2.5
80.6
GLM 5
86.2
Step 3.5 Flash
83.9
OpenCompass · MMLU-Pro
Kimi K2.5 leads by +1.0
Kimi K2.5
86.2
GLM 5
85.2
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
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.
Kimi K2.5
65.3
GLM 5
44.7
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.
Kimi K2.5
11.8
GLM 5
4.9
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
GLM 5 leads by +64.2
GLM 5
1455.6
Step 3.5 Flash
1391.4
Chess Puzzles
Kimi K2.5 leads by +2.0
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
Kimi K2.5
12.0
GLM 5
10.0
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
Kimi K2.5 leads by +11.5
FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning.
Kimi K2.5
27.9
GLM 5
16.4
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
Kimi K2.5 leads by +2.1
FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning.
Kimi K2.5
4.2
GLM 5
2.1
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.
Kimi K2.5
83.5
GLM 5
83.8
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.
Kimi K2.5
92.2
GLM 5
80.0
PostTrainBench
GLM 5 leads by +3.6
Kimi K2.5
10.3
GLM 5
13.9
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.
Kimi K2.5
36.2
GLM 5
43.8
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.
Kimi K2.5
73.8
GLM 5
72.1
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.
Kimi K2.5
43.2
GLM 5
52.4
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.
Kimi K2.5
45.6
GLM 5
48.2
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 | GLM 5 | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
OpenCompass · AIME2025 | 91.9 | 95.8 | 95.7 |
OpenCompass · GPQA-Diamond | 88.1 | 85.3 | 83.7 |
OpenCompass · HLE | 28.6 | 28.1 | 21.6 |
OpenCompass · IFEval | 93.9 | 93.2 | 93.2 |
OpenCompass · LiveCodeBenchV6 | 80.6 | 86.2 | 83.9 |
OpenCompass · MMLU-Pro | 86.2 | 85.2 | 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 |
ARC-AGI ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization. | 65.3 | 44.7 | — |
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. | 11.8 | 4.9 | — |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall | — | 1455.6 | 1391.4 |
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | 12.0 | 10.0 | — |
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. | 27.9 | 16.4 | — |
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. | 4.2 | 2.1 | — |
GPQA diamond Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs. | 83.5 | 83.8 | — |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 92.2 | 80.0 | — |
PostTrainBench | 10.3 | 13.9 | — |
SimpleBench SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking. | 36.2 | 43.8 | — |
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. | 73.8 | 72.1 | — |
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. | 43.2 | 52.4 | — |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 45.6 | 48.2 | — |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
| Model | Input | Output | Context | Projected $/mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $0.44 | $2.00 | 262K tokens (~131 books) | $8.30 | |
| $0.60 | $1.92 | 203K tokens (~101 books) | $9.30 | |
| $0.10 | $0.30 | 262K tokens (~131 books) | $1.50 |