Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | 1T | — |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | 256k | 128k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $0.60 | $10.00 |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $3.00 | $30.00 |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | $0.10 | — |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $0.45SiliconFlow | $10.00OpenAI |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $2.25SiliconFlow | $30.00OpenAI |
| Benchmarks | ||
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 87.6% | 42.5% |
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 52% | — |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 76.8% | — |
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | 16% | — |
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | 85% | — |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 60.6% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 30.1% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Moonshot AI | OpenAI |
| Release date | Jan 27 2026 | Nov 6 2023 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Kimi K2.5vsClaude Haiku 5.5GPT-4 TurbovsClaude Haiku 5.5Kimi K2.5vsGemini 4 ArgonGPT-4 TurbovsGemini 4 ArgonKimi K2.5vsMuse Spark 1.3GPT-4 TurbovsMuse Spark 1.3Kimi K2.5vsGrok 4.7GPT-4 TurbovsGrok 4.7Kimi K2.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGPT-4 TurbovsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashKimi K2.5vsMistral Large 4GPT-4 TurbovsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Kimi K2.5 leads GPT-4 Turbo on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (GPQA Diamond). Kimi K2.5 is cheaper on both input and output: $0.60 vs $10.00 per million input tokens, and $3.00 vs $30.00 per million output tokens. GPT-4 Turbo shipped 813 days before Kimi K2.5, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 256k (Kimi K2.5) vs 128k (GPT-4 Turbo). Kimi K2.5 is open weight, while GPT-4 Turbo is closed.
On GPQA Diamond, Kimi K2.5 leads at 87.6% vs GPT-4 Turbo at 42.5%.