Model comparison
Kimi K2.5 vs Qwen3.5-Flash
Kimi K2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.1 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 5.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Kimi K2.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 28 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 28 benchmarks with published results for both. Kimi K2.5 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Kimi K2.5 leads 48.8 to 34.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleQA Verified: 34.3% for Kimi K2.5 and 20.3% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.45 / $2.25 for Kimi K2.5.
- Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
- Kimi K2.5 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Kimi K2.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Moonshot AI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 48.1 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2026-01-27 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 262K | 1M |
| Max output | 262K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.45 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.25 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 51 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Kimi K2.5 leads
Kimi K2.5: 48.8 (#53), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1437 | 1244 |
| LMArena Coding | 1474 | 1412 |
| ALE-Bench | 821.65 | 221.8 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.8% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 70.8% | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 67.3% | — |
| SciCode | 49% | — |
| WeirdML | 45.6% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Kimi K2.5: 34.2 (#48), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 1,198 | 462.69 |
| Terminal-Bench | 43.2% | — |
| OSWorld | 63.3% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Kimi K2.5: 31.2 (#80), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 12% | 21% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1453 | 1403 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 148.03 | 143.98 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 11.8% | — |
| SimpleBench | 46.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 78.5% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 69.9% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 65.3% | — |
| CritPt | 3.1% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 3.4% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 69.4% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 20% |
| DTBench | — | 82.9% |
| LMCA | — | 29.1% |
Math Kimi K2.5 leads
Kimi K2.5: 51.8 (#53), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 92.2% | 84.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1470 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 27.9% | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | 0% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.2% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 62.3% | — |
Knowledge Kimi K2.5 leads
Kimi K2.5: 53.6 (#56), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 87.6% | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34.3% | 20.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 14.2% | 10.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1466 | 1407 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 24.4% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Kimi K2.5: 41.1 (#39), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1269 | — |
| LMArena Document | 1430 | — |
Multilingual Kimi K2.5 leads
Kimi K2.5: 53.9 (#53), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1433 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1495 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1454 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1441 | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1421 | 1368 |
| LMArena Korean | 1410 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1435 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1450 | 1400 |
Instruction Following Kimi K2.5 leads
Kimi K2.5: 75.3 (#64), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1431 | 1374 |
Long Context Kimi K2.5 leads
Kimi K2.5: 52.1 (#7), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1445 | 1392 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 86.1% | — |
| CL-bench | 19.3% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 13.2% | — |
Writing & Preference Kimi K2.5 leads
Kimi K2.5: 65.1 (#53), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1445 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1423 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1393 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1579 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Kimi K2.5 better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
Kimi K2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.1 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 5.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Kimi K2.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Kimi K2.5 or Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Kimi K2.5 lists at $0.45 and $2.25.
Is Kimi K2.5 or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
Kimi K2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.8 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do Kimi K2.5 and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
28 benchmarks have published results for both models. Kimi K2.5 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.