Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning): The Ultimate Performance & Pricing Comparison

Deep dive into reasoning, benchmarks, and latency insights.

The Final Verdict in the Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) Showdown

After a comprehensive analysis, Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) emerges as the superior choice for users prioritizing raw intelligence and reasoning. However, Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) remains a highly competitive option, especially for scenarios demanding faster response times and cost-efficiency. This detailed Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) comparison will break down every critical metric to help you make the best decision.

Explore best-for scenarios•Let the AI Selector recommend next steps

Model Snapshot

Key decision metrics at a glance.

Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)

Other

Reasoning: 6
Coding: 4
Multimodal: 4
Long Context: 6
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.001
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: 105.397tokens/sec

Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning)

Other

Reasoning: 8
Coding: 1
Multimodal: 2
Long Context: 3
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.003
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: 84.657tokens/sec

Overall Capabilities

The capability radar provides a holistic view of the Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) matchup. This chart illustrates each model's strengths and weaknesses at a glance, forming a cornerstone of our Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) analysis.

This radar chart visually maps the core capabilities (reasoning, coding, math proxy, multimodal, long context) of `Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)` vs `Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning)`.

Benchmark Breakdown

For a granular look, this chart directly compares scores across standardized benchmarks. In the critical MMLU Pro test, a key part of the Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) debate, Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) scores 60 against Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning)'s 80. This data-driven approach is essential for any serious Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) comparison.

This grouped bar chart provides a side-by-side comparison for each benchmark metric.

Speed & Latency

Speed is a crucial factor in the Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) decision for interactive applications. The metrics below highlight the trade-offs you should weigh before shipping to production.

Time to First Token

Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)300ms

Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning)300ms

Tokens per Second

Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)105.397

Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning)84.657

Head to the playground to validate these results yourself

The Economics of Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning)

Power is only one part of the equation. This Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) pricing analysis gives you a true sense of value.

Pricing Breakdown

Compare input and output pricing at a glance.

Real-World Cost Scenario

To process 1M input tokens and generate 250k output tokens, Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) would cost $0.001, whereas Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) would cost $0.003. This practical calculation is vital for any developer considering the Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) choice.

Review the complete pricing and packaging strategy

Which Model Wins the Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) Battle for You?

Choose Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) if...

You need the most advanced reasoning capabilities available.

Your use case demands cutting-edge AI performance.

Choose Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) if...

You are developing at scale where operational costs are critical.

You prioritize cost-effectiveness over maximum performance.

Your workload requires consistent, reliable performance.

Explore all Best picks Use the AI Selector for a tailored recommendation

Your Questions about the Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) Comparison

Review the full evaluation methodology · Read the latest analysis posts

Data source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/