Compare · ModelsLive · 3 picked · head to head

DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale vs GLM 5 vs Kimi K2.5

Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.

Winner summary

Kimi K2.5 wins 14 of 23 shared benchmarks. Leads in math · knowledge · language.

Category leads
math·Kimi K2.5knowledge·Kimi K2.5language·Kimi K2.5coding·GLM 5speed·Kimi K2.5agentic·GLM 5reasoning·Kimi K2.5general·Kimi K2.5
Hype vs Reality
DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale
#6 by perf·no signal
QUIET
GLM 5
#79 by perf·#3 by attention
DESERVED
Kimi K2.5
#122 by perf·#17 by attention
UNDERRATED
Best value
2.2x better value than GLM 5
DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale
97.8 pts/$
$0.80/M
GLM 5
43.7 pts/$
$1.26/M
Kimi K2.5
37.0 pts/$
$1.35/M
Vendor risk
One or more vendors flagged
DeepSeek logo
DeepSeek
$3.4B·Tier 1
Higher risk
z-ai logo
z-ai
private · undisclosed
Unknown
moonshotai logo
Moonshot AI
$18.0B·Tier 1
Medium risk
Head to head
DeepSeek V3.2 SpecialeGLM 5Kimi K2.5
OpenCompass · AIME2025
DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale leads by +0.2
DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale
96.0
GLM 5
95.8
Kimi K2.5
91.9
OpenCompass · GPQA-Diamond
Kimi K2.5 leads by +1.4
DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale
86.7
GLM 5
85.3
Kimi K2.5
88.1
OpenCompass · HLE
DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale
28.6
GLM 5
28.1
Kimi K2.5
28.6
OpenCompass · IFEval
Kimi K2.5 leads by +0.7
DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale
91.7
GLM 5
93.2
Kimi K2.5
93.9
OpenCompass · LiveCodeBenchV6
GLM 5 leads by +5.3
DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale
80.9
GLM 5
86.2
Kimi K2.5
80.6
OpenCompass · MMLU-Pro
Kimi K2.5 leads by +0.7
DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale
85.5
GLM 5
85.2
Kimi K2.5
86.2
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index
Kimi K2.5 leads by +58.9
Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?"
DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale
0.0
Kimi K2.5
58.9
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index
Kimi K2.5 leads by +1.7
Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads.
DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale
37.9
Kimi K2.5
39.5
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
Kimi K2.5 leads by +17.4
DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale
29.4
Kimi K2.5
46.8
APEX-Agents
GLM 5 leads by +2.8
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
GLM 5
17.2
Kimi K2.5
14.4
ARC-AGI
Kimi K2.5 leads by +20.7
ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization.
GLM 5
44.7
Kimi K2.5
65.3
ARC-AGI-2
Kimi K2.5 leads by +7.0
ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data.
GLM 5
4.9
Kimi K2.5
11.8
Chess Puzzles
Kimi K2.5 leads by +2.1
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
GLM 5
5.3
Kimi K2.5
7.4
Cl Bench
Kimi K2.5 leads by +0.6
GLM 5
18.7
Kimi K2.5
19.3
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
Kimi K2.5 leads by +20.1
FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning.
GLM 5
28.8
Kimi K2.5
49.0
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
Kimi K2.5 leads by +3.5
FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning.
GLM 5
3.5
Kimi K2.5
7.0
GPQA diamond
GLM 5 leads by +0.3
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
GLM 5
83.8
Kimi K2.5
83.5
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
Kimi K2.5 leads by +12.2
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
GLM 5
80.0
Kimi K2.5
92.2
PostTrainBench
GLM 5 leads by +3.6
GLM 5
13.9
Kimi K2.5
10.3
SimpleBench
GLM 5 leads by +7.7
SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking.
GLM 5
43.8
Kimi K2.5
36.2
SWE-Bench verified
Kimi K2.5 leads by +1.7
SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability.
GLM 5
72.1
Kimi K2.5
73.8
Terminal Bench
GLM 5 leads by +9.2
Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 69.4%, demonstrating significant agentic terminal competence.
GLM 5
52.4
Kimi K2.5
43.2
WeirdML
GLM 5 leads by +2.6
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
GLM 5
48.2
Kimi K2.5
45.6
Full benchmark table
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2 SpecialeGLM 5Kimi K2.5
OpenCompass · AIME2025
96.095.891.9
OpenCompass · GPQA-Diamond
86.785.388.1
OpenCompass · HLE
28.628.128.6
OpenCompass · IFEval
91.793.293.9
OpenCompass · LiveCodeBenchV6
80.986.280.6
OpenCompass · MMLU-Pro
85.585.286.2
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index
Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?"
0.0—58.9
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index
Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads.
37.9—39.5
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
29.4—46.8
APEX-Agents
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
—17.214.4
ARC-AGI
ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization.
—44.765.3
ARC-AGI-2
ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data.
—4.911.8
Chess Puzzles
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
—5.37.4
Cl Bench
—18.719.3
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning.
—28.849.0
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning.
—3.57.0
GPQA diamond
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
—83.883.5
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
—80.092.2
PostTrainBench
—13.910.3
SimpleBench
SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking.
—43.836.2
SWE-Bench verified
SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability.
—72.173.8
Terminal Bench
Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 69.4%, demonstrating significant agentic terminal competence.
—52.443.2
WeirdML
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
—48.245.6
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
ModelInputOutputContextProjected $/mo
DeepSeek logoDeepSeek V3.2 Speciale$0.40$1.20164K tokens (~82 books)$6.00
z-ai logoGLM 5$0.60$1.92205K tokens (~102 books)$9.30
moonshotai logoKimi K2.5$0.45$2.25262K tokens (~131 books)$9.00