Grok Build 0.1 vs Kimi K2.5
Grok Build 0.1 (2026) and Kimi K2.5 (2026) are agentic coding models from xAI and Moonshot AI. Grok Build 0.1 ships a 256k-token context window, while Kimi K2.5 ships a 256k-token context window. On SWE-bench Verified, Kimi K2.5 leads by 6 pts. This comparison covers specs, pricing, API access, capabilities, benchmarks, input and output token costs, and production fit for coding and agent workloads.
Grok Build 0.1 is safer overall; choose Kimi K2.5 when coding workflow support matters.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Grok Build 0.1 | Kimi K2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Best for | custom coding agents, code generation, and tool loops | custom coding agents, code generation, and tool loops |
| Decision fit | Coding, RAG, and Agents | Coding, RAG, and Agents |
| Context window | 256k | 256k |
| Cheapest output | $2/1M tokens | $2/1M tokens |
| Provider routes | 3 tracked | 10 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 1 rows | SWE-bench Verified leader |
Decision tradeoffs
- Grok Build 0.1 uniquely exposes Reasoning and Tool use in local model data.
- Local decision data tags Grok Build 0.1 for Coding, RAG, and Agents.
- Kimi K2.5 holds a shared-benchmark lead on SWE-bench Verified, ahead by 6 points.
- Kimi K2.5 has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
- Local decision data tags Kimi K2.5 for Coding, RAG, and Agents.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.
Grok Build 0.1
$1,300
Cheapest tracked route/tier: xAI Console
Kimi K2.5
$852
Cheapest tracked route/tier: OpenRouter
Estimated monthly gap: $448. Batch, cache, alternate speed tiers, and negotiated pricing are excluded from this local estimate.
Switch friction
- Provider overlap exists on OpenRouter and Vercel AI Gateway; start route-level A/B tests there.
- Cheapest tracked output pricing is tied, so migration risk shifts to quality, latency, and provider packaging.
- Check replacement coverage for Reasoning and Tool use before moving production traffic.
- Provider overlap exists on Vercel AI Gateway and OpenRouter; start route-level A/B tests there.
- Cheapest tracked output pricing is tied, so migration risk shifts to quality, latency, and provider packaging.
- Grok Build 0.1 adds Reasoning and Tool use in local capability data.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2026-05-14 | 2026-03-15 |
| Context window | 256k | 256k |
| Parameters | — | 1T (MoE, 384 experts) |
| Architecture | - | mixture of experts |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Openness | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | Commercial use with conditions | Commercial use with conditions |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | - |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Grok Build 0.1 | Kimi K2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Input price |
| $0.44/1M tokens |
| Output price |
| $2/1M tokens |
| Providers |
Capabilities
| Capability | Grok Build 0.1 | Kimi K2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Multimodal | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Function calling | Yes | Yes |
| Tool use | Yes | No |
| Structured outputs | Yes | Yes |
| Code execution | No | No |
| IDE integration | No | No |
| Computer use | No | No |
| Parallel agents | No | No |
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Kimi K2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 70.8 | 76.8 |
Deep dive
On shared benchmark coverage, SWE-bench Verified has Grok Build 0.1 at 70.8 and Kimi K2.5 at 76.8, with Kimi K2.5 ahead by 6 points. The largest visible gap is 6 points on SWE-bench Verified, which matters most when that benchmark mirrors your workload. Treat isolated benchmark wins as directional, because provider routing, prompt style, and tool access can move real application results.
The capability footprint differs most on reasoning mode: Grok Build 0.1 and tool use: Grok Build 0.1. Both models share vision, multimodal input, function calling, and structured outputs, so the practical split is not just feature count. Use those differences to decide whether the page is about raw model quality, agentic coding support, multimodal ingestion, or predictable structured API behavior.
For cost, Grok Build 0.1 lists tiered pricing: 0-200,001t is $1/1M input and $2/1M output; 200,001t+ is $2/1M input and $4/1M output, while Kimi K2.5 lists $0.44/1M input and $2/1M output tokens on the cheapest tracked provider. A 70/30 input-output blend puts Kimi K2.5 lower by about $0.39 per million blended tokens. For tiered rows, this cheapest-track view can understate interactive or fast-lane spend, so compare the tier you will actually use. Availability is 3 providers versus 10, so concentration risk also matters.
Choose Grok Build 0.1 when coding workflow support are central to the workload. Choose Kimi K2.5 when coding workflow support, lower input-token cost, and broader provider choice are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship.
FAQ
Which has a larger context window, Grok Build 0.1 or Kimi K2.5?
Grok Build 0.1 supports 256k tokens, while Kimi K2.5 supports 256k tokens. That gap matters most for long documents, large codebases, retrieval-heavy agents, and conversations where earlier context must remain visible.
Which is cheaper, Grok Build 0.1 or Kimi K2.5?
Grok Build 0.1 lists tiered pricing: 0-200,001t is $1/1M input and $2/1M output; 200,001t+ is $2/1M input and $4/1M output. Kimi K2.5 lists $0.44/1M input and $2/1M output tokens on the cheapest tracked provider. Compare the tier you will actually use; cheap async pricing can overstate savings for interactive workflows. Provider discounts or batch pricing can still change the final bill.
Is Grok Build 0.1 or Kimi K2.5 open source?
Grok Build 0.1 is listed under Proprietary. Kimi K2.5 is listed under Proprietary. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.
Which is better for vision, Grok Build 0.1 or Kimi K2.5?
Both Grok Build 0.1 and Kimi K2.5 expose vision. The better choice depends on benchmark fit, context budget, pricing, and whether your provider route exposes the same capability surface. Use this as a quick comparison signal, then confirm the provider-specific limits before committing to production.
Which is better for multimodal input, Grok Build 0.1 or Kimi K2.5?
Both Grok Build 0.1 and Kimi K2.5 expose multimodal input. The better choice depends on benchmark fit, context budget, pricing, and whether your provider route exposes the same capability surface.
Where can I run Grok Build 0.1 and Kimi K2.5?
Grok Build 0.1 is available on xAI Console, Vercel AI Gateway, and OpenRouter. Kimi K2.5 is available on Cloudflare Workers AI, Fireworks AI, OpenRouter, Together AI, and NVIDIA NIM. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-06-06. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.