Grok vs Kimi

Grok wins on affordability and real-time integration through X Premium ($8/mo), while Kimi dominates reasoning benchmarks—scoring 96.1% on AIME 2025 versus no score for Grok, and outperforming on MMLU Pro (87.1% vs 85.4%) and GPQA (87.6% vs 85.3%). Pick Grok for convenience and current events; pick Kimi for complex reasoning and math.

Grok vs Kimi: Feature Comparison

Math & Science Reasoning

Kimi

Grok

Strong, competitive

Kimi

Slightly stronger overall

Kimi scores 87.1% MMLU Pro vs Grok's 85.4%. On specialized AIME 2025, Kimi reaches 96.1%.

Real-time Information

Grok

Grok

X/Twitter integration

Kimi

No web search

Grok uniquely accesses live X data and current events via Twitter integration.

Software Engineering

Kimi

Grok

No benchmark data

Kimi

Strong coding ability

Kimi scores 76.8% on SWE-bench Verified; Grok has no published software engineering benchmark.

Image Understanding

Tie

Grok

Supported

Kimi

Supported

Both models offer image understanding capabilities for multimodal tasks.

Pricing

Grok

Grok

$8/mo with Premium

Kimi

Pay-as-you-go model

Grok's subscription is bundled with X Premium; Kimi's API costs ~$0.60/1M tokens input, significantly more expensive.

Ecosystem & Community

Grok

Grok

Growing via X platform

Kimi

Smaller, emerging

Grok benefits from X's massive user base; Kimi has limited ecosystem outside Asia.

Extended Reasoning

Tie

Grok

DeepSearch available

Kimi

Extended thinking

Both models support deeper reasoning modes for complex problem-solving.

Writing Quality

Kimi

Grok

Less polished output

Kimi

More refined writing

Grok prioritizes unfiltered personality over polish; Kimi delivers more professional written content.

See Them Answer the Same Question

We asked both models the same prompt. Here’s what they said.

What are the most important inventions of the last 100 years, and how would the world be different without them?

Grok 4.1 Fast

What are the most important inventions of the last 100 years, and how would the world be different without them?

Most Important Inventions of the Last 100 Years (1924–2024)

The last century has seen transformative inventions that reshaped health, communication, transportation, and daily life. I've selected seven of the most impactful based on their global reach, economic influence, and societal changes (drawing from sources like MIT Technology Review, Nobel Prizes, and historical analyses from historians such as Vaclav Smil). They're listed roughly chronologically, with a brief explanation of their invention, importance, and a counterfactual "world without them."

1. Antibiotics (Penicillin, discovered 1928 by Alexander Fleming; mass-produced 1940s)

  • Why important: Enabled treatment of bacterial infections (e.g., pneumonia, sepsis), saving ~200 million lives since WWII (WHO estimates). Lifespans increased by 10+ years in developed nations.
  • World without it: Routine surgeries, childbirth, and minor wounds would carry high mortality risks (pre-1920s death rates from infections: 20-50%). Hospitals would be far deadlier; global population ~2 billion smaller; medicine stuck in pre-modern era.

2. Transistor (1947, Bell Labs: John Bardeen, Walter Brattain, William Shockley)

  • Why important: Replaced bulky vacuum tubes, enabling miniaturization of electronics. Foundation for all modern computing, radios, and devices (Nobel Prize 1956).
  • World without it: No portable electronics, computers would be room-sized behemoths (like ENIAC). No laptops, TVs, or smartphones; space race and Cold War tech stalled; economy 50% smaller (digital sector = 10% of global GDP today, per McKinsey).

3. Commercial Jet Engine (1940s, Frank Whittle/ Hans von Ohain; widespread 1950s with Boeing 707)

  • Why important: Made air travel affordable and fast (707 flew 600 mph vs. propellers' 300 mph), shrinking the world—global passenger miles exploded from 10 billion in 1950 to 4 trillion today (IATA).
  • World without it: International travel limited to ships (weeks vs. hours); globalization halved—trade 70% lower (WTO data); tourism/economy regionally siloed; cultural exchange minimal (no quick Hollywood exports or migrant labor).

4. Integrated Circuit (Microchip, 1958, Jack Kilby/Robert Noyce)

  • Why important: Packed thousands of transistors onto silicon, powering PCs, servers, and AI. Moore's Law (transistors double every ~2 years) drove exponential tech growth.
  • World without it: Computing limited to mainframes for elites; no apps, automation, or data centers. Stock markets manual; no GPS/ATMs; productivity 30-40% lower (World Bank links chips to 25% GDP growth since 1970).

5. Internet/World Wide Web (ARPANET 1969; WWW 1989, Tim Berners-Lee)

  • Why important: Instant global info-sharing; e-commerce ($5T/year, Statista); remote work/social media connect 5B+ people.
  • World without it: Communication via mail/phone/fax—news delayed days; no streaming/Zoom (COVID lockdowns impossible); economy pre-digital (no Amazon/Google, ~20% GDP loss); isolated societies, slower science (e.g., no open-access research).

6. GPS (1978, US DoD; civilian use 1983)

  • Why important: Satellite-based navigation accurate to meters; powers $1T+ industries (logistics, rideshares, farming—US GPS gov't value: $156B/year).
  • World without it: Maps/paper navigation; shipping 30% slower/costlier (just-in-time supply chains collapse); no Uber/DoorDash; military ops blind; disasters harder to coordinate (e.g., no precise aid drops).

7. Smartphone (1973 Motorola prototype; iPhone 2007 popularized touchscreens/apps)

  • Why important: Pocket supercomputer—4.5B users (GSMA); combines phone/camera/computer/GPS; apps revolutionized health (telemedicine), finance (mobile banking lifts 1B out of poverty, Gates Foundation).
  • World without it: Social life analog (no Instagram/TikTok); work immobile (no Slack); emergencies slower (no instant 911 mapping); developing world disconnected (e.g., no M-Pesa microloans in Africa).

Broader Impacts and Interconnections

Without these, the world would be smaller, sicker, and slower: global population 4-5B (vs. 8B, due to medicine/transport); GDP per capita halved ($10K vs. $20K, IMF-adjusted); wars/cold conflicts longer (no nukes/comms from transistors?); culture homogeneous regionally. These inventions compound—e.g., chips enable internet, which powers smartphones. Recent adds like mRNA vaccines (2020) build on this foundation but are too new for "last 100 years" dominance yet.

This list is subjective (others like LEDs or CRISPR could argue in), but these have the widest evidence-based ripple effects. What invention surprises you most?

Compare Grok and Kimi on your own question

See both models answer side by side in Multichat

Try it yourself — free

Kimi Is Better for Writing

Kimi edges out Grok for writing tasks thanks to its stronger overall language reasoning, reflected in its higher MMLU Pro score (87.1% vs 85.4%). Grok's own profile acknowledges "less polished writing" as a notable weakness, which is a significant handicap for a writing-focused tool. Kimi's extended thinking capability also helps it produce more coherent, well-structured long-form content. Grok's real-time X data adds little value for most writing scenarios, so Kimi is the clearer choice here.

Read full comparison

Kimi Is Better for Coding

Kimi is the dominant choice for coding. Its SWE-bench Verified score of 76.8% and LiveCodeBench v6 score of 85.0% are among the strongest in the industry, demonstrating real-world software engineering capability rather than just benchmark performance. Grok has no published SWE-bench score to compete with. Kimi's ability to coordinate parallel sub-tasks also makes it well-suited to handling complex, multi-file codebases. Developers who need reliable, high-quality code output should strongly prefer Kimi.

Read full comparison

Kimi Is Better for Business

For business use, Kimi's stronger analytical reasoning and multi-step task coordination give it an edge over Grok for strategic analysis, report generation, and complex decision-support. Grok's real-time X/Twitter integration is a genuine asset for tracking market sentiment and trends, but this alone doesn't offset Kimi's broader capability advantage. Kimi's higher GPQA Diamond and MMLU Pro scores indicate more reliable expertise across the diverse domains businesses deal with. For most business professionals, Kimi delivers more consistently high-quality outputs.

Read full comparison

Kimi Is Better for Students

Kimi is an outstanding tool for students, particularly in STEM fields. Its AIME 2025 score of 96.1% is exceptional, meaning it can handle even competition-level mathematics, and its GPQA Diamond score of 87.6% reflects strong science reasoning. Students across subjects will also benefit from Kimi's stronger MMLU Pro performance (87.1% vs 85.4%) for general academic work. Grok's web search can help with quick lookups, but Kimi's deeper reasoning capability is far more valuable for truly understanding and learning difficult material.

Read full comparison

Kimi Is Better for Research

Kimi's significantly better Humanity's Last Exam score (30.1% vs Grok's 17.6%) is a strong signal of depth in expert-level knowledge, making it the better tool for serious research tasks. Its GPQA Diamond score of 87.6% also confirms strong performance on graduate-level science questions. Grok's web search capability is valuable for sourcing current information and references, but Kimi's superior reasoning handles the harder job of synthesis and analysis. Researchers who need a model that can genuinely engage with complex material will find Kimi more capable.

Read full comparison

Grok Is Better for Marketing

Grok is the clear winner for marketing, primarily because of its deep integration with X/Twitter and real-time data access. Marketers can use it to monitor trending conversations, gauge audience sentiment, and craft timely content that resonates with what's happening right now. Its image generation capability also makes it practical for creating marketing assets without switching tools. Kimi lacks web search and image generation entirely, making it far less useful for the dynamic, trend-driven demands of modern marketing work.

Read full comparison

Kimi Is Better for Math

Kimi is simply in a different league when it comes to mathematics. Its AIME 2025 score of 96.1% is extraordinary—this benchmark tests elite competition mathematics, and Kimi's performance there is best-in-class. Its GPQA Diamond score of 87.6% also demonstrates strong quantitative reasoning across science disciplines. Grok has no published AIME score and scores significantly lower on Humanity's Last Exam. For any user who needs reliable, high-level math capability, Kimi is the unambiguous choice.

Read full comparison

Kimi Is Better for Data Analysis

Kimi's superior reasoning benchmarks translate directly into better data analysis performance—interpreting patterns, forming hypotheses, and drawing accurate conclusions from complex datasets. Its multi-step task coordination capability also means it can handle structured analytical workflows more reliably than Grok. Neither model offers native code execution or file uploads, which limits both; however, Kimi's stronger raw reasoning gives it the edge for analytical thinking. Grok's real-time data access is useful for pulling current figures, but Kimi's analytical depth is what matters most for data work.

Read full comparison

It's a Tie for Free

Both Grok and Kimi offer meaningful free tiers, making this a genuine tie with different trade-offs. Grok's free tier is bundled with X's free plan, providing access to real-time data and web search—but it requires an X account and comes with platform lock-in. Kimi's free tier is available independently and offers access to its highly capable K2.5 model. Users already on X will find Grok's free tier convenient, while those who prefer a standalone AI tool will get more raw capability per dollar from Kimi's free offering.

Read full comparison

Grok Is Better for Everyday Use

For daily general use, Grok has a practical advantage: real-time web search and X/Twitter integration mean it can answer questions about current events, today's news, and live trending topics that a model without search simply cannot. This makes it far more useful for the spontaneous, curiosity-driven questions that define everyday use. Kimi is a more capable reasoner on paper, but for casual daily tasks where "what's happening now" matters, Grok's connectivity is a genuine differentiator. Its accessible pricing through X Premium also makes it a natural fit for existing X users.

Read full comparison

Grok Is Better for Content Creation

Grok wins for content creation because it combines real-time trend awareness with image generation—two features Kimi lacks entirely. Content creators need to produce timely, visually rich material, and Grok's X integration lets it tap directly into what's trending to inspire relevant content. The addition of image generation means creators can produce visual assets alongside written copy in one tool. Kimi has no image generation and no web search, which are significant gaps for a field that depends on current events and multi-format output.

Read full comparison

Kimi Is Better for Customer Support

Kimi's strength in coordinating multi-step tasks makes it well-suited to customer support workflows, where responses often require reasoning through complex scenarios, policies, and edge cases. Its stronger benchmark scores suggest more reliable and accurate answers across diverse topics that support agents encounter. Grok's personality-driven style—while engaging—can introduce inconsistency that's a liability in professional support contexts where accuracy and tone matter. Kimi's more measured, reasoning-focused approach is a better fit for building dependable customer-facing assistance.

Read full comparison

Kimi Is Better for Translation

Kimi's higher MMLU Pro score (87.1% vs 85.4%) reflects stronger language understanding, which underpins translation quality. Its superior reasoning capabilities also help it preserve nuance, context, and register across languages—things that lower-capability models often flatten. Grok's noted weakness in polished writing carries over into translation, where fluency and precision are paramount. While Kimi's documentation skews toward Chinese (suggesting particular strength in CJK language pairs), its overall language model quality makes it the better translation tool for most users.

Read full comparison

Kimi Is Better for Summarization

Kimi's stronger reasoning benchmarks give it an edge in summarization, where the model must accurately identify the most important information and synthesize it without distortion. Both models share the same 128K token context window, so neither has an advantage on document length. Kimi's ability to coordinate multi-step reasoning means it handles hierarchical or complex documents more reliably—identifying main arguments across nested sections. Grok's summarization capability is competent, but Kimi's superior benchmark performance suggests it will make fewer errors in what it chooses to include or omit.

Read full comparison

Grok Is Better for Creative Writing

For creative writing, Grok's unfiltered, distinctive personality gives it a genuine edge. It brings a more irreverent and playful voice to creative tasks—fiction, satire, experimental styles—that Kimi's more analytical disposition doesn't naturally replicate. While Grok's writing polish has been noted as weaker in formal contexts, creative writing often rewards personality and risk-taking over technical precision. Grok's real-time cultural awareness from X also helps it tap into contemporary references and voice. Users who want a creative collaborator with a genuine point of view will find Grok more stimulating.

Read full comparison

Kimi Is Better for Email

Kimi's stronger language reasoning makes it the better choice for drafting professional, polished email communication. Grok's acknowledged weakness in writing quality is a direct liability when producing emails where tone, precision, and professionalism matter. Kimi handles the nuances of formal versus informal registers more reliably and is less likely to introduce awkward phrasing. Whether drafting outreach, internal communication, or client-facing messages, Kimi's consistently higher output quality makes it the safer and more effective email assistant.

Read full comparison

Kimi Is Better for Legal

Legal work demands precision, logical consistency, and mastery of complex reasoning chains—all areas where Kimi's benchmark superiority is most valuable. Its GPQA Diamond score of 87.6% and Humanity's Last Exam score of 30.1% reflect the kind of expert-level analytical depth that legal analysis requires. Grok's personality-driven style and noted writing inconsistency are genuine risks when accuracy is non-negotiable. Kimi is also better at multi-step reasoning tasks, which maps well to legal analysis, contract review, and argument construction. Neither model should replace a qualified attorney, but Kimi is the more trustworthy assistant.

Read full comparison

Kimi Is Better for Healthcare

In healthcare, the stakes of reasoning errors are high, and Kimi's benchmark scores are meaningfully stronger across every relevant measure—87.6% on GPQA Diamond versus Grok's 85.3%, and 30.1% on Humanity's Last Exam versus Grok's 17.6%. These benchmarks include a significant proportion of biomedical and clinical science questions, making Kimi's advantage directly relevant to healthcare use cases. Grok's more casual, unfiltered personality is also a poor fit for the careful, measured communication healthcare contexts demand. Kimi's deeper analytical rigor makes it the better choice for medical information tasks, though both models fall short of clinical-grade validation.

Read full comparison

Kimi Is Better for Productivity

Kimi is explicitly stronger at coordinating multi-step, parallel tasks—a core requirement for productivity use cases like project planning, workflow automation, and managing complex to-do breakdowns. This parallel sub-task coordination capability means Kimi can handle ambitious, multi-part requests more coherently than Grok. Grok's real-time web search adds value for research-driven productivity tasks, but Kimi's superior task orchestration is the more fundamental productivity skill. Users who want an AI that can take a large objective and systematically work through it will find Kimi more capable.

Read full comparison

Grok Is Better for Images

Grok is the decisive winner for image-related tasks because it offers both image generation and image understanding, while Kimi only supports image understanding with no generation capability. This means Grok can both analyze existing images and create new ones from text prompts, making it a far more complete visual tool. For users who need to generate graphics, illustrations, or visual content, Kimi simply cannot help. Grok's image generation—combined with its real-time cultural context from X—also makes generated images more likely to feel current and relevant.

Read full comparison

Grok Is Better for Beginners

Grok is the more beginner-friendly option thanks to its familiar access point through X/Twitter, which many users already have accounts with. Getting started requires no separate signup or learning curve beyond the platform they may already use daily. Kimi's documentation skews toward Chinese, which creates friction for English-speaking new users, and its brand is less established in Western markets. Grok's personality-driven interface is also more approachable and conversational for users who are new to AI assistants and want something that feels engaging rather than clinical.

Read full comparison

Kimi Is Better for Professionals

Professionals who depend on AI for high-stakes analytical work will get more reliable results from Kimi's stronger reasoning benchmarks. Its GPQA Diamond (87.6%), MMLU Pro (87.1%), and Humanity's Last Exam (30.1%) scores all demonstrate expert-level depth across technical domains. Kimi's multi-step task coordination also makes it effective for complex professional workflows that require breaking large problems into structured steps. Grok's competitive pricing and real-time data are useful, but professionals need consistent accuracy above all else—and Kimi delivers that more reliably.

Read full comparison

Kimi Is Better for Privacy

From a privacy standpoint, Kimi has a meaningful advantage over Grok simply because it is not integrated into a social media platform. Grok's deep ties to X/Twitter raise legitimate concerns about how conversational data intersects with a platform built on user data monetization. Kimi, as a standalone AI service from Moonshot AI, keeps AI interactions separate from social media behavior. Neither model is open-source in its entirety and both are cloud-based, so neither offers true on-premise privacy—but users who are uncomfortable with social-platform data practices will find Kimi the less concerning choice.

Read full comparison

Kimi Is Better for Enterprise

Kimi is better positioned for enterprise adoption due to its strong API offering, competitive pricing ($0.60/$3.00 per 1M tokens), and partially open-weight architecture that gives organizations more flexibility for customization and compliance review. Its superior benchmark performance means enterprise deployments can trust it with more complex, high-value tasks. Grok's enterprise story is weaker—its ecosystem is smaller, its API is less developed, and its tight coupling with X/Twitter raises questions about data governance in regulated industries. Kimi's standalone positioning and technical strength make it the more serious enterprise option.

Read full comparison

Kimi Is Better for Education

Kimi is an excellent educational tool, especially for STEM disciplines. Its AIME 2025 score of 96.1% means it can accurately solve and explain even elite-level math competition problems, making it exceptional for tutoring in mathematics. Its GPQA Diamond score of 87.6% confirms strong science reasoning, and its extended thinking mode helps it show its work step by step—a crucial feature for learning rather than just getting answers. Grok's web search can supplement lesson material with current examples, but Kimi's deeper subject matter mastery makes it the stronger educational partner overall.

Read full comparison

Frequently Asked Questions

Compare for Specific Topics

Related Comparisons

Want to compare Grok and Kimi on your own question?

Compare in Multichat — free

Join 10,000+ professionals who use Multichat