Noometry

Model comparison

Kimi K2.5 Instant vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Kimi K2.5 Instant is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.6 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

Kimi K2.5 Instant Moonshot AI

43.6

Rank #89 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Kimi K2.5 Instant scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Kimi K2.5 Instant leads 42.6 to 22.6.

Side by side

Kimi K2.5 InstantQwen2.5-Coder-32B
ProviderMoonshot AIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index43.633.4
Released—2024-09-18
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—33K
Max output—29K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.66
Output $ / M tokens—$1
Results tracked1831

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

Category by category

Coding Kimi K2.5 Instant leads

Kimi K2.5 Instant: 42.6 (#97), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

BenchmarkKimi K2.5 InstantQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Coding14841276
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—9%
Aider Polyglot—16.4%
LMArena WebDev1404—
BigCodeBench Instruct—49%
LiveBench Coding—56.9%
BigCodeBench Complete—58%
HumanEval+—87.2%
MBPP+—77%

Reasoning Kimi K2.5 Instant leads

Kimi K2.5 Instant: 29.7 (#90), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

BenchmarkKimi K2.5 InstantQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14431251
LiveBench Reasoning—42.1%
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index—119.49
HellaSwag—83%
LiveBench—46.2%
WinoGrande—80.8%

Math Kimi K2.5 Instant leads

Kimi K2.5 Instant: 39.4 (#105), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

BenchmarkKimi K2.5 InstantQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Math14421251
LiveBench Math—46.6%
GSM8K—93%

Knowledge Kimi K2.5 Instant leads

Kimi K2.5 Instant: 40.2 (#123), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

BenchmarkKimi K2.5 InstantQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Expert14401221
ARC (AI2) Challenge—70.5%
MMLU—79.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

Kimi K2.5 Instant: 40.2 (#50), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

BenchmarkKimi K2.5 InstantQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Vision1254—

Multilingual Kimi K2.5 Instant leads

Kimi K2.5 Instant: 52.0 (#94), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

BenchmarkKimi K2.5 InstantQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English14061205
LMArena Chinese14491222
LMArena Russian14041228
LMArena French1403—
LMArena German1413—
LMArena Korean1378—
LMArena Spanish1447—

Instruction Following Kimi K2.5 Instant leads

Kimi K2.5 Instant: 75.3 (#65), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

BenchmarkKimi K2.5 InstantQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Instruction Following14301223
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.7%

Long Context Kimi K2.5 Instant leads

Kimi K2.5 Instant: 43.9 (#83), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

BenchmarkKimi K2.5 InstantQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query14351251

Writing & Preference Kimi K2.5 Instant leads

Kimi K2.5 Instant: 60.6 (#95), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

BenchmarkKimi K2.5 InstantQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text14201230
LMArena Creative Writing13811174
LMArena Multi-Turn14271222
LiveBench Language—23.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is Kimi K2.5 Instant better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Kimi K2.5 Instant is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.6 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Kimi K2.5 Instant or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

Kimi K2.5 Instant scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.6 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Kimi K2.5 Instant and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Kimi K2.5 Instant has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper