← Models

Model profile

Kimi K2

Moonshot AIdeveloper
2025-07-11release date
#78 / 309overall rank
30eval lineages

Evidence summary

Kimi K2 has an estimated overall rank of #78; its 90% source-sensitivity interval is #59–#180. Its behavior-only rank is #79; company governance moves the combined estimate to #78. Published evidence spans 30 evals and 7 of 7 behavior components. Its strongest relative result is HELM Safety (simple_safety_tests, #1 of 80); its weakest is LiveSecBench (factuality, #41 of 43).

Compare this model

Only models sharing at least one published sub-eval are listed.

Official and reference links

Published eval results

Rank is within that sub-eval. Black marks the observed result; the grey dot marks the value implied by the global rank. Values stay on each source’s native scale.

Eval / sub-evalRankValueDistributionSource
AA-Omnisciencehallucination_rate#114 / 3280.7267Source ↗official
AgentDrive Safety Compliancescr#19 / 4889.38Source ↗official
AIRBench 2024 Safety Scenariossafety_scenarios#28 / 800.741Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardcorrigibility#3 / 244.495Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardhonesty#7 / 243.765Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardnon_manipulation#8 / 243.598Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardrobustness#18 / 243.267Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardsafety#9 / 243.923Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardscheming#8 / 243.898Source ↗official
Arena Factuality — Text Arena (factuality-only weighting)factuality_bt_rating#83 / 1121420.0Source ↗official
BullshitBench v2clear_pushback_rate#86 / 1060.1Source ↗official
CAIS Risk Indexagent_red_teaming#41 / 4492.8Source ↗official
CAIS Risk Indexbioweapons_assistance#42 / 4993Source ↗official
CAIS Risk Indexhle_overconfidence#35 / 5067.8Source ↗official
CAIS Risk Indexmachiavelli#13 / 4684.2Source ↗official
CAIS Risk Indexmask#33 / 5230.7Source ↗official
CAIS Risk Indextextquests_harm#9 / 4914.6Source ↗official
Cisco AI Defense Rolling Single-Turn Leaderboardsingle_turn_attack_success_rate#35 / 10420.59Source ↗official
Confabulationsconfabulation_rate#37 / 5230.2Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardbias_attack_non_success_rate#48 / 24128.81Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardcbrn_attack_non_success_rate#191 / 24181.44Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardharmful_attack_non_success_rate#88 / 24179.16Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardtoxicity_attack_non_success_rate#195 / 23990.97Source ↗official
FORTRESSaverage_risk_score#40 / 4955.47Source ↗official
HELM Safetyanthropic_red_team#27 / 800.993Source ↗official
HELM Safetybbq#28 / 800.949Source ↗official
HELM Safetyharmbench#8 / 800.974Source ↗official
HELM Safetysimple_safety_tests#1 / 801Source ↗official
HELM Safetyxstest#9 / 800.982Source ↗official
HUMAINE Trust, Ethics and Safetytrust_ethics_safety_score#48 / 5423.64Source ↗official
LiveSecBenchethics#40 / 4320.12Source ↗official
LiveSecBenchfactuality#41 / 4318.45Source ↗official
LiveSecBenchlegality#27 / 4331.19Source ↗official
LiveSecBenchprivacy#8 / 4373.81Source ↗official
LiveSecBenchpsychological_health#30 / 4334.35Source ↗official
MACHIAVELLIdeception_relative_random_pct#13 / 5084.2Source ↗official
Manager Coercion Benchcoercion_ladder_depth#17 / 318.667Source ↗self run
MASKlying_probability_pct#47 / 5353.33Source ↗official
RealityTest — Text AI-Identity Disclosuredisclosure_probability#4 / 170.552Source ↗official
Shelleducation_jsr#4 / 140.426Source ↗official
Shellfinance_jsr#3 / 140.22Source ↗official
Shellmanagement_jsr#2 / 140.346Source ↗official
Social Welfare Function Benchmarkfairness#1 / 190.637Source ↗official
SpeciEvalbelief_animal_sentience#66 / 1136.725Source ↗official
SpeciEvalland_animal_4ns#83 / 1134.775Source ↗official
SpeciEvalsea_animal_4ns#102 / 1135.13Source ↗official
SpeciEvalspeciesism#19 / 1131.505Source ↗official
UAVBench safety-critical decision recognitionethical_safety_critical_accuracy#15 / 270.685Source ↗official
Vectara HHEM Factual Consistencyfactual_consistency_rate#86 / 9482.1Source ↗official

Values evaluations

Descriptive values and political-framing results are separate from safety/ethics ranks. Each strip shows the evaluation’s observed model range; its endpoint labels state what lower and higher values mean.

UGI Political Values

DimensionValueDistribution
Political Lean-29
Government45.5
Diplomacy69.4
Economy47
Society67.8

The Economist World Values Survey Cultural Map

DimensionValueDistribution
Survival ↔ Self-expression2.62
Traditional ↔ Secular0.427