DeepSeek R1 0528 vs Kimi K2.5
Kimi K2.5 comes out ahead, 62 to 53 on our weighted score, though DeepSeek R1 0528 is 22% cheaper per token.
DeepSeekDeepSeek R1 0528
53/100- ECI141.2
- Price$0.512 / $2.19
- Context164K
- Our pick
Moonshot AIKimi K2.5
62/100- ECI148.1
- Price$0.60 / $3.00
- Context262K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Kimi K2.5 is our pick
Kimi K2.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 62/100 against DeepSeek R1 0528 (53). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. DeepSeek R1 0528 wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityKimi K2.5Capabilities Index (ECI): Kimi K2.5 148.1 · DeepSeek R1 0528 141.2
- Lowest priceDeepSeek R1 0528DeepSeek R1 0528 $0.932 · Kimi K2.5 $1.20 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextKimi K2.5Kimi K2.5 262,144 · DeepSeek R1 0528 163,840 tokens
- Widest inputsKimi K2.5DeepSeek R1 0528: Text · Kimi K2.5: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | DeepSeek R1 0528 | Kimi K2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 66 | 74 |
| Price | 25% | 49 | 44 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 35 | 70 |
| Context window | 10% | 28 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 53/100 | 62/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | DeepSeek R1 0528DeepSeek | Kimi K2.5Moonshot AI |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 141.2 | 148.1 (best) |
| ECI rank | #108 of 165 | #68 of 165 (best) |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 76.3% | 87.6% (best) |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 66.4% | 92.2% (best) |
| SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues | — | 73.8% |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | — | 34.3% |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.512 (best) | $0.60 |
| Output | $2.19 (best) | $3.00 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.932 (best) | $1.20 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 16 providers | Median of 33 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 163,840 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | OpenMIT | Open |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 16 | 33 (best) |
| Released | May 28, 2025 | Jan 27, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Jan 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- DeepSeek R1 0528$9.50
- Kimi K2.5$12.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: DeepSeek R1 0528 or Kimi K2.5?
Kimi K2.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 62/100 against DeepSeek R1 0528 (53). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. DeepSeek R1 0528 wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek R1 0528 or Kimi K2.5?
DeepSeek R1 0528 is cheaper at $0.512 input / $2.19 output per million tokens (median across 16 API providers). Kimi K2.5 costs $0.60 input / $3.00 output per million tokens (median across 33 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.932 per million tokens for DeepSeek R1 0528 versus $1.20 for Kimi K2.5 (1.3× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Kimi K2.5 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Kimi K2.5 148.1 (#68 of 165) and DeepSeek R1 0528 141.2 (#108 of 165). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (146.3–149.5 vs 139.0–142.9), so the gap is a real one. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Kimi K2.5 87.6%, DeepSeek R1 0528 76.3%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Kimi K2.5 92.2%, DeepSeek R1 0528 66.4%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for DeepSeek R1 0528 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Kimi K2.5 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Kimi K2.5 has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 163,840 for DeepSeek R1 0528. Maximum output per response: DeepSeek R1 0528 up to 32,768, Kimi K2.5 up to 262,144 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
DeepSeek R1 0528 accepts text; Kimi K2.5 accepts text, images and video. Kimi K2.5 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights (MIT), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Kimi K2.5 is the newest, released Jan 27, 2026. DeepSeek R1 0528 came out May 28, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Kimi K2.5 Jan 2025.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Gemini 2.5 FlashThree-way comparison
- DeepSeek R1 0528 vs Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle · ECI 140.6
- DeepSeek R1 0528 vs Kimi K2 InstructMoonshot AI · ECI 139.9
- DeepSeek R1 0528 vs Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Alibaba (Qwen) · ECI 143.8
- DeepSeek R1 0528 vs GLM-4.7Z.ai (Zhipu) · ECI 143.7
- Kimi K2.5 vs Qwen3.6 PlusAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 147.8
- Kimi K2.5 vs GPT-5.4 miniOpenAI · ECI 148.8
