Grok vs Kimi for Math
Kimi significantly outperforms Grok on mathematical reasoning, with notably higher scores on MMLU Pro (87.1% vs 85.4%), GPQA Diamond (87.6% vs 85.3%), and an exceptional 96.1% on AIME 2025—a competitive math olympiad benchmark that directly tests mathematical problem-solving. While both models handle standard math well, Kimi's specialized strength in advanced mathematical reasoning makes it the clear choice for serious math work. Grok offers real-time data access that can supplement research, but it falls short on pure mathematical capability.
Head-to-Head for Math
| Criteria | Grok | Kimi | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Advanced Math Problems (AIME) | Strong, score not disclosed | Exceptional at 96.1% | Kimi |
| General Math Knowledge (MMLU Pro) | 85.4% accuracy | 87.1% accuracy | Kimi |
| Complex Reasoning (GPQA Diamond) | 85.3% accuracy | 87.6% accuracy | Kimi |
| Extended Reasoning Capability | DeepSearch for analysis | Extended thinking available | Tie |
| Free Access for Math Learners | X Premium required | Free tier available | Kimi |
Advanced Math Problems (AIME)
Grok
Strong, score not disclosed
Kimi
Exceptional at 96.1%
General Math Knowledge (MMLU Pro)
Grok
85.4% accuracy
Kimi
87.1% accuracy
Complex Reasoning (GPQA Diamond)
Grok
85.3% accuracy
Kimi
87.6% accuracy
Extended Reasoning Capability
Grok
DeepSearch for analysis
Kimi
Extended thinking available
Free Access for Math Learners
Grok
X Premium required
Kimi
Free tier available
See Them Answer a Math Question
We asked both models the same math-focused prompt.
“Solve the integral of (x^3 · e^(2x)) dx step by step, explaining each application of integration by parts and verifying the result by differentiation.”
Solve the integral of (x^3 · e^(2x)) dx step by step, explaining each application of integration by parts and verifying the result by differentiation.
Step-by-Step Solution: ∫ x³ e^{2x} dx
To solve ∫ x³ e^{2x} dx, we use integration by parts repeatedly. The formula is:
∫ u dv = u v − ∫ v du
We choose u as the polynomial (which decreases in degree with each differentiation) and dv as the exponential (easy to integrate). Don't forget the constant of integration +C at the end.
Step 1: First Application of Integration by Parts
Let u = x³, so du = 3x² dx.
Let dv = e^{2x} dx, so v = (1/2) e^{2x}.
Then:
∫ x³ e^{2x} dx = (x³)(1/2 e^{2x}) − ∫ (1/2 e^{2x})(3x² dx)
= (x³ / 2) e^{2x} − (3/2) ∫ x² e^{2x} dx.
Step 2: Second Application (on ∫ x² e^{2x} dx)
Let u = x², so du = 2x dx.
Let dv = e^{2x} dx, so v = (1/2) e^{2x}.
Then:
∫ x² e^{2x} dx = (x²)(1/2 e^{2x}) − ∫ (1/2 e^{2x})(2x dx)
= (x² / 2) e^{2x} − ∫ x e^{2x} dx.
Step 3: Third Application (on ∫ x e^{2x} dx)
Let u = x, so du = dx.
Let dv = e^{2x} dx, so v = (1/2) e^{2x}.
Then:
∫ x e^{2x} dx = (x)(1/2 e^{2x}) − ∫ (1/2 e^{2x}) dx
= (x / 2) e^{2x} − (1/2) ∫ e^{2x} dx
= (x / 2) e^{2x} − (1/2)(1/2 e^{2x})
= e^{2x} (x/2 − 1/4).
Step 4: Back-Substitute into Step 2
∫ x² e^{2x} dx = (x² / 2) e^{2x} − e^{2x} (x/2 − 1/4)
= e^{2x} [x²/2 − (x/2 − 1/4)]
= e^{2x} (x²/2 − x/2 + 1/4).
Step 5: Back-Substitute into Step 1 (Original Integral)
∫ x³ e^{2x} dx = (x³ / 2) e^{2x} − (3/2) [e^{2x} (x²/2 − x/2 + 1/4)]
= e^{2x} [x³/2 − (3/2)(x²/2 − x/2 + 1/4)]
= e^{2x} [x³/2 − (3/4)x² + (3/4)x − 3/8] + C.
Final Answer:
∫ x³ e^{2x} dx = e^{2x} \left( \frac{1}{2} x^3 - \frac{3}{4} x^2 + \frac{3}{4} x - \frac{3}{8} \right) + C.
Verification by Differentiation
Let y = e^{2x} \left( \frac{1}{2} x^3 - \frac{3}{4} x^2 + \frac{3}{4} x - \frac{3}{8} \right).
Differentiate using the product rule: y' = (e^{2x})' ⋅ (polynomial) + e^{2x} ⋅ (polynomial)'.
- Let p(x) = \frac{1}{2} x^3 - \frac{3}{4} x^2 + \frac{3}{4} x - \frac{3}{8}.
- p'(x) = \frac{3}{2} x^2 - \frac{3}{2} x + \frac{3}{4}.
- (e^{2x})' = 2 e^{2x}, so 2 p(x) = x^3 - \frac{3}{2} x^2 + \frac{3}{2} x - \frac{3}{4}.
Now:
y' = e^{2x} \left[ x^3 - \frac{3}{2} x^2 + \frac{3}{2} x - \frac{3}{4} \right] + e^{2x} \left[ \frac{3}{2} x^2 - \frac{3}{2} x + \frac{3}{4} \right]
= e^{2x} \left[ x^3 + \left( -\frac{3}{2} x^2 + \frac{3}{2} x^2 \right) + \left( \frac{3}{2} x - \frac{3}{2} x \right) + \left( -\frac{3}{4} + \frac{3}{4} \right) \right]
= e^{2x} (x^3) = x^3 e^{2x}.
The derivative matches the integrand, confirming the solution is correct.
Try math tasks with both models
See Grok and Kimi answer side by side in Multichat
Detailed Breakdown
When it comes to math, both Grok and Kimi are serious contenders — but the benchmark data tells a clear story. Kimi K2.5 outperforms Grok across every available math-relevant metric, and the gap in some areas is significant. That said, Grok still brings real value depending on your workflow.
Starting with benchmarks: Kimi scores 87.6% on GPQA Diamond versus Grok's 85.3%, and 87.1% on MMLU Pro compared to Grok's 85.4%. But the most striking difference is on Humanity's Last Exam — a test designed to stump frontier models with PhD-level and olympiad-style problems. Grok scores 17.6%; Kimi scores 30.1% without tools and an impressive 50.2% with tools enabled. Perhaps most telling for competitive math is Kimi's AIME 2025 score of 96.1%, a benchmark Grok has no published result for. For anyone doing rigorous or advanced mathematics, these numbers matter.
In practice, Kimi K2.5 handles multi-step proofs, symbolic reasoning, and complex calculus problems with notable depth. Its extended thinking mode lets it work through problems methodically, showing intermediate steps rather than jumping to an answer. This makes it genuinely useful for university-level coursework, research mathematics, and competitive problem-solving. The parallel sub-task coordination also helps when breaking down a large proof or equation system into manageable components.
Grok's strengths in math are more applied. Its real-time web search via X integration means it can pull in recent mathematical results, newly published papers, or verify formulas against live sources — something Kimi cannot do. For students or professionals who need math help alongside research context (say, understanding a new statistical method or checking a formula used in a recent paper), Grok's live data access is a genuine advantage. Grok also integrates seamlessly into the X/Twitter ecosystem, making it accessible for quick back-of-envelope calculations without switching tools.
For everyday math — budgeting, basic algebra, interpreting statistics — both models perform well and the differences are minor. The gap widens as complexity increases.
Recommendation: If math is a primary use case, Kimi K2.5 is the stronger choice. Its benchmark performance, especially on competition-level problems and advanced reasoning tasks, meaningfully exceeds Grok's. Choose Grok if you need real-time research context alongside your math work, or if you're already embedded in the X ecosystem. For anyone tackling olympiad problems, graduate-level proofs, or intensive STEM work, Kimi is the clear pick.
Frequently Asked Questions
Other Topics for Grok vs Kimi
Math Comparisons for Other Models
Try math tasks with Grok and Kimi
Compare in Multichat — freeJoin 10,000+ professionals who use Multichat