// head_to_head

Kimi K2.5 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra

Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.

OpenRouter + LiveBenchAll comparisonsFull leaderboard

Kimi K2.5 is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here.

Kimi K2.5 does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.

moonshotai

Kimi K2.5

Blended / 1M
$0.900
Context
262K
Released
Jan 27, 2026
Overall score
Not evaluated
reasoningtool callingimage inputprompt caching

nvidia

Nemotron 3 Ultra

Blended / 1M
$1.05
Context
262K
Released
Jun 4, 2026
Overall score
67.4
reasoningtool callingprompt caching

Specs and pricing

MetricKimi K2.5Nemotron 3 Ultra
LiveBench overall

Mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better.

67.4
Cost per point

Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability.

$0.2118
Blended price / 1M

3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic.

$0.900win$1.05
Input price / 1M$0.450win$0.600
Output price / 1M$2.25$2.40
Cached input / 1M

Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one.

$0.070win$0.120
Context window262K262K
Max output tokens236Kwin183K

Benchmarks by category

An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — Kimi K2.5 on top, Nemotron 3 Ultra below, both out of 100.

Agentic coding
38.7
Coding
70.7
Reasoning
74.7
Mathematics
88.7
Data analysis
54.5
Language
70.8
Instruction following
73.4

What each one costs to run

Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.

WorkloadKimi K2.5Nemotron 3 Ultra
Support chatbot

1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests

$260.64/mo$301.44/mo
RAG assistant

8K in / 600 out × 100K requests

$343.00/mo$432.00/mo
Coding agent

40K in / 4K out × 20K requests

$327.20/mo$403.20/mo
Document extraction

20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests

$599.75/mo$756.00/mo
Bulk classification

500 in / 20 out × 5M requests

$1,160/mo$1,500/mo
Run these two through the cost calculator

Which should you pick?

You are cost-constrained

Kimi K2.5

Cheaper on blended list price at $0.900 per million tokens.

Kimi K2.5 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra FAQ

Which is better, Kimi K2.5 or Nemotron 3 Ultra?

Kimi K2.5 is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here. Kimi K2.5 does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.

Is Kimi K2.5 cheaper than Nemotron 3 Ultra?

Kimi K2.5 is cheaper. On a 3:1 input:output blend, Kimi K2.5 lists at $0.900 per million tokens and Nemotron 3 Ultra at $1.05 — Kimi K2.5 is 17% cheaper. Input and output are priced separately — Kimi K2.5 charges $0.450 in and $2.25 out, Nemotron 3 Ultra charges $0.600 and $2.40 — so the model that looks cheaper flips depending on how output-heavy your workload is.

Does Kimi K2.5 or Nemotron 3 Ultra have a bigger context window?

They are effectively the same — 262K for Kimi K2.5 and 262K for Nemotron 3 Ultra.

Do Kimi K2.5 and Nemotron 3 Ultra support prompt caching?

Both publish a cached-input rate: $0.070 per million for Kimi K2.5 and $0.120 for Nemotron 3 Ultra, against full input rates of $0.450 and $0.600. On a workload with a long stable prefix — a system prompt, a tool schema, a retrieved corpus — that changes the economics more than the headline price does.

Related comparisons

How these numbers are produced

  • Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
  • ScoresLiveBench release 2026-06-25, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
  • Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
  • “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.

Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.