Model comparison
Kimi K2.5 Instant vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 43.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Kimi K2.5 Instant scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.7 Plus in 8 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.7 Plus leads 54.9 to 40.2.
- Kimi K2.5 Instant has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Kimi K2.5 Instant | Qwen3.7 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Moonshot AI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.6 | 45.3 |
| Released | — | 2026-06-02 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 1M |
| Max output | — | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1.60 |
| Results tracked | 18 | 32 |
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), Qwen3.7 Plus: 36.6 (#206)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 Instant | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1484 | 1473 |
| FrontierCode | — | 10.2% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1404 | — |
| SciCode | — | 45.5% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Kimi K2.5 Instant: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 21.4 (#138)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 Instant | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| OSWorld 2.0 | — | 2.8% |
Reasoning Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Kimi K2.5 Instant: 29.7 (#90), Qwen3.7 Plus: 39.3 (#59)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 Instant | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1460 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 74.8% |
| CritPt | — | 9.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 24% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 17% |
| DTBench | — | 84% |
| LMCA | — | 37.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 147.37 |
Math Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Kimi K2.5 Instant: 39.4 (#105), Qwen3.7 Plus: 50.5 (#56)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 Instant | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1442 | 1466 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 34.4% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 93.3% |
Knowledge Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Kimi K2.5 Instant: 40.2 (#123), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.9 (#51)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 Instant | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1440 | 1467 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 87.9% |
Multimodal Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Kimi K2.5 Instant: 40.2 (#50), Qwen3.7 Plus: 41.8 (#33)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 Instant | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1254 | 1279 |
| LMArena Document | — | 1444 |
Multilingual Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Kimi K2.5 Instant: 52.0 (#94), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.8 (#38)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 Instant | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1406 | 1445 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1449 | 1510 |
| LMArena French | 1403 | 1473 |
| LMArena German | 1413 | 1471 |
| LMArena Korean | 1378 | 1415 |
| LMArena Russian | 1404 | 1457 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1447 | 1457 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1413 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Kimi K2.5 Instant: 75.3 (#65), Qwen3.7 Plus: 75.8 (#52)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 Instant | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1430 | 1440 |
Long Context Too close to call
Kimi K2.5 Instant: 43.9 (#83), Qwen3.7 Plus: 44.5 (#65)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 Instant | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1435 | 1455 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Kimi K2.5 Instant: 60.6 (#95), Qwen3.7 Plus: 64.3 (#56)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 Instant | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1420 | 1455 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1381 | 1439 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1427 | 1460 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Kimi K2.5 Instant better than Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 43.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Kimi K2.5 Instant or Qwen3.7 Plus better for coding?
Kimi K2.5 Instant scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.6 versus 36.6 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Kimi K2.5 Instant and Qwen3.7 Plus share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Kimi K2.5 Instant has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Plus has 32.