Model comparison

DeepSeek-V3.1 vs Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.8 to 42.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

DeepSeek-V3.1 DeepSeek

42.8

Rank #108 Confirmed

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo Moonshot AI

45.8

Rank #70 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-V3.1 scores higher in 3 categories and Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo in 5 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads 47.4 to 38.9.

Side by side

DeepSeek-V3.1 and Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo specifications
DeepSeek-V3.1Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo
ProviderDeepSeekMoonshot AI
Noometry Index42.845.8
Released2025-08-212025-11-06
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window164K—
Max output8K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.25—
Output $ / M tokens$0.95—
Results tracked2721

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding DeepSeek-V3.1 leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 40.3 (#144), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 38.4 (#178)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo
LMArena Coding14171454
LMArena WebDev—1322
WeirdML38.4%—

Reasoning Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 27.9 (#110), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 32.5 (#75)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo
LMArena Hard Prompts14171428
SimpleBench40%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark53.2%—
Chess Puzzles—20%
DTBench82.7%—
LMCA24.3%—
Epoch Capabilities Index139.92—
ForecastBench58—

Math Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 38.9 (#122), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 47.4 (#68)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo
LMArena Math14201429
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—83.1%

Knowledge Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 43.7 (#90), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 50.9 (#69)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo
LMArena Expert14051439
GPQA Diamond—84.2%
Vectara Hallucination Rate5.5%—

Multilingual Too close to call

DeepSeek-V3.1: 51.6 (#106), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 51.4 (#109)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo
LMArena Non-English14001398
LMArena Chinese14691456
LMArena French14471425
LMArena German14111390
LMArena Japanese13781357
LMArena Korean13371330
LMArena Russian14051391
LMArena Spanish14311406

Instruction Following Too close to call

DeepSeek-V3.1: 73.9 (#110), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 74.0 (#109)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo
LMArena Instruction Following14001403

Long Context Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 36.3 (#232), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 43.2 (#102)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo
LMArena Longer Query14221415
Fiction.LiveBench52.8%—

Writing & Preference Too close to call

DeepSeek-V3.1: 60.3 (#98), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 60.0 (#104)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo
LMArena Text14201415
LMArena Creative Writing14011374
LMArena Multi-Turn14081414
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1436—

Frequently asked questions

Is DeepSeek-V3.1 better than Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo?

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.8 to 42.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is DeepSeek-V3.1 or Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo better for coding?

DeepSeek-V3.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.3 versus 38.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3.1 and Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3.1 has 27 scored results on Noometry and Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper