Kimi K2.5 vs Qwen3.5 122B A10B
Compare Kimi K2.5 and Qwen3.5 122B A10B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.
Compare Kimi K2.5 vs Qwen3.5 122B A10B live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Kimi K2.5 vs Qwen3.5 122B A10B: Overview
Kimi K2.5 is a frontier-scale multimodal AI model developed by Moonshot AI and released on January 27, 2026. As a significant advancement within the Kimi K2 family, it utilizes a sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture with 1 trillion total parameters (32 billion active per inference) and a massive 256K-token context window. The model features native multimodal integration via a 400M-parameter MoonViT encoder, allowing it to process text, images, and video frames simultaneously. Built for both speed and depth, it offers "Instant" and "Thinking" modes, the latter of which excels at expert-level reasoning, scoring 50.2% on the Humanity’s Last Exam (HLE) benchmark when equipped with tools.
The model is released under a Modified MIT License, which remains open-weight but requires attribution for high-revenue commercial entities. It introduces an "Agent Swarm" paradigm capable of coordinating up to 100 specialized sub-agents for parallel workflows, significantly reducing latency in complex research tasks. For vision tasks, Kimi K2.5 demonstrates strong autonomous visual debugging capabilities, where it can inspect its own generated UI outputs against visual specifications to iteratively refine frontend code. This makes it a powerful choice for developers testing automated UI reconstruction, high-fidelity OCR document processing, and multi-step agentic research grounded in complex visual data.
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B is a high-capacity multimodal Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) model developed by Alibaba’s Qwen team as part of the Qwen3.5 model family. The architecture contains 122 billion total parameters while activating roughly 10 billion per token through sparse expert routing, allowing the model to balance large-scale reasoning ability with relatively efficient inference compared to dense models of similar size.
The model is designed to process both text and visual inputs within a unified multimodal framework, enabling tasks that require reasoning across images, documents, charts, and natural language. This makes it suitable for applications such as document understanding, diagram interpretation, and complex visual question answering.
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B supports a native context window of approximately 256,000 tokens, which can be extended further through techniques such as YaRN scaling to support very long-context workloads. Released under the Apache 2.0 license, it builds on earlier Qwen multimodal systems and provides developers with an open-weight model capable of handling demanding multimodal reasoning and analysis tasks.
Kimi K2.5 vs Qwen3.5 122B A10B Comparison Table
| Property | Kimi K2.5 | Qwen3.5 122B A10B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Moonshot AI | Qwen |
| Category | open | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jan 2026 | Feb 2026 |
| Context Window | 256K | 256K |
| Parameters | 1T | 122B |
| License | Modified MIT | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.375 | $0.260 |
| Output $/1M | $2.02 | $2.08 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | ||
| Model Features | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 35.82% | 76.12% |
| Avg Response Time | 14.81s | 1.77s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.6K | 1.2K |
| Median output tokens | 766 | 7 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0021 | $0.0003 |
| Defect Detection | 46.7%(7/15) | 86.7%(13/15) |
| Document Understanding | 55.6%(5/9) | 77.8%(7/9) |
| Object Counting | 10%(1/10) | 40%(4/10) |
| Object Understanding | 42.9%(6/14) | 92.9%(13/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 26.3%(5/19) | 73.7%(14/19) |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology