Noometry

Model comparison

Kimi K2.5 vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct

Kimi K2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

Kimi K2.5 Moonshot AI

47.8

Rank #50 Confirmed

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)

38.8

Rank #168 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Kimi K2.5 scores higher in 8 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Kimi K2.5 leads 53.6 to 35.4.

Side by side

Kimi K2.5Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
ProviderMoonshot AIAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index47.838.8
Released2026-01-27—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window262K—
Max output262K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.45—
Output $ / M tokens$2.25—
Results tracked5116

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

Category by category

Coding Kimi K2.5 leads

Kimi K2.5: 48.7 (#48), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 38.9 (#154)

BenchmarkKimi K2.5Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Coding14741346
SWE-bench Verified73.8%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)70.8%—
LMArena WebDev1436—
SWE-bench Multilingual67.3%—
SciCode49%—
WeirdML45.6%—
ALE-Bench821.65—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Kimi K2.5: 34.0 (#44), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —

BenchmarkKimi K2.5Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
Terminal-Bench43.2%—
OSWorld63.3%—
Vending-Bench 21,198—

Reasoning Kimi K2.5 leads

Kimi K2.5: 31.2 (#74), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 25.4 (#131)

BenchmarkKimi K2.5Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts14541322
ARC-AGI-211.8%—
SimpleBench46.8%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark78.5%—
NYT Connections (extended)69.9%—
ARC-AGI-165.3%—
CritPt3.1%—
Chess Puzzles12%—
EnigmaEval3.4%—
Thematic Generalization69.4%—
Epoch Capabilities Index148.05—

Math Kimi K2.5 leads

Kimi K2.5: 50.3 (#46), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 33.6 (#169)

BenchmarkKimi K2.5Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Math14701305
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions62.3%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202592.2%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)27.9%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%—

Knowledge Kimi K2.5 leads

Kimi K2.5: 53.6 (#52), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 35.4 (#175)

BenchmarkKimi K2.5Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Expert14661307
GPQA Diamond87.6%—
Humanity's Last Exam24.4%—
SimpleQA Verified34.3%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate14.2%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Kimi K2.5: 40.4 (#37), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —

BenchmarkKimi K2.5Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Vision1269—
LMArena Document1430—

Multilingual Kimi K2.5 leads

Kimi K2.5: 54.1 (#50), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.8 (#185)

BenchmarkKimi K2.5Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Non-English14331275
LMArena Chinese14951304
LMArena French14541328
LMArena German14411283
LMArena Korean14121206
LMArena Russian14361268
LMArena Spanish14501337
LMArena Japanese1422—

Instruction Following Kimi K2.5 leads

Kimi K2.5: 75.5 (#60), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.8 (#182)

BenchmarkKimi K2.5Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following14311298

Long Context Kimi K2.5 leads

Kimi K2.5: 52.1 (#7), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#161)

BenchmarkKimi K2.5Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query14451312
Fiction.LiveBench86.1%—
CL-bench19.3%—
CL-bench Life13.2%—

Writing & Preference Kimi K2.5 leads

Kimi K2.5: 65.3 (#51), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.4 (#179)

BenchmarkKimi K2.5Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Text14451311
LMArena Creative Writing14231264
LMArena Multi-Turn14441309
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1579—

Frequently asked questions

Is Kimi K2.5 better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?

Kimi K2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is Kimi K2.5 or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?

Kimi K2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Kimi K2.5 and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Kimi K2.5 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.

Related comparisons

Go deeper