Grok 4 vs Kimi K2.5
Compare Grok 4 and Kimi K2.5 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, Image Captioning, and OCR.
Compare Grok 4 vs Kimi K2.5 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
Grok 4 vs Kimi K2.5: Overview
Grok 4, released by xAI on July 9, 2025, is the fourth-generation model in the Grok family and the most advanced to date. It is multimodal, supporting text, vision, tool use, and real-time web search, with a reported 256,000-token context window for long-form reasoning and document analysis. Its training data extends through November 2024, making it the most up-to-date Grok model at launch.
The lineup includes Grok 4 Generalist for broad tasks, Grok 4 Heavy for higher-capacity reasoning, and Grok 4 Code optimized for programming and debugging. A notable feature is its always-on “Think” mode, designed for deeper multi-step reasoning. While xAI has not disclosed parameter counts, Grok 4 is positioned to compete with frontier models like GPT-5 and Claude 4, balancing real-time knowledge via web integration with structured tool use. It is best suited for coding, complex reasoning, and multimodal AI assistants.
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.
Grok 4 vs Kimi K2.5 Comparison Table
| Property | Grok 4 | Kimi K2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | xAI | Moonshot AI |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2025 | Jan 2026 |
| Context Window | 256K | 256K |
| Parameters | 1T | |
| License | Proprietary | Modified MIT |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.375 | |
| Output $/1M | $2.02 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | ||
| Object Detection | ||
| Model Features | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 52.24% | 35.82% |
| Avg Response Time | 85.24s | 14.81s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.6K | |
| Median output tokens | 766 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0021 | |
| Defect Detection | 80%(12/15) | 46.7%(7/15) |
| Document Understanding | 44.4%(4/9) | 55.6%(5/9) |
| Object Counting | 10%(1/10) | 10%(1/10) |
| Object Understanding | 57.1%(8/14) | 42.9%(6/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 52.6%(10/19) | 26.3%(5/19) |
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