Moonshot AI (Kimi)kimi-k2.5VSOpenAIGPT-5.4 nano
Our Take
We recommend kimi-k2.5 if your workflow requires peak reasoning performance, or the 2.6x cheaper GPT-5.4 nano to optimize your API budget. While both models deliver similar coding capabilities, kimi-k2.5 holds a clear lead in reasoning. Choose kimi-k2.5 for complex logic, or GPT-5.4 nano for cost optimization.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Coding Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the SWE-bench Pro benchmark. kimi-k2.5 scored 50.7%, while GPT-5.4 nano scored 52.4%.
Reasoning Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. kimi-k2.5 scored 87.6%, while GPT-5.4 nano scored 82.8%.
Cost Efficiency: GPT-5.4 nano pricing ($0.2/M input, $1.25/M output) is 2.6x cheaper than kimi-k2.5 ($0.6/M input, $3/M output).
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
50.7%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+4.8%)
87.6%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$1.20Input: $0.60 | Output: $3.00Context Window
262.14k tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+1.7%)
52.4%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
82.8%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)2.6x cheaper
$0.46Input: $0.20 | Output: $1.25Context WindowLarger
400k tokensFrequently Asked Questions about kimi-k2.5 vs GPT-5.4 nano
GPT-5.4 nano is cheaper than kimi-k2.5. GPT-5.4 nano has a blended cost of $0.46/1M tokens, which is about 2.6x cheaper than kimi-k2.5 at $1.20/1M tokens.
GPT-5.4 nano is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 52.4% on swe-bench-pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning) compared to kimi-k2.5 which scores 50.7%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for kimi-k2.5 and GPT-5.4 nano.
Do you want to find a model for your constraints?
Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.