Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Kimi K3
Kimi K3 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Composer 2 vs Kimi K3
Updated October 2, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead. 0 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 0
- Composer 2 only
- 5
- Kimi K3 only
- 48
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Supported: Kimi K3How the comparison works
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Composer 2
Composer 2 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Composer 2
Composer 2 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesCoding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Composer 2 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Composer 2 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limitedCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Composer 2 does not fit this workload in one request. Composer 2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
—Composer 261.4Kimi K3
Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8
The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
5 Composer 2 only
48 Kimi K3 only
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Agentic
Not comparable- Composer 2
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3
- 68.1
- Supported · #8/119
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 12 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Composer 2
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3
- 61.4
- Supported · #18/144
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 14 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Composer 2
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3
- 65.8
- #18/27
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Composer 2
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3
- 89.4
- #1/49
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 3 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Composer 2
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3
- 67.9
- Supported · #18/171
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Composer 2
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Composer 2
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Composer 2
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Composer 2 | Kimi K3 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not ranked | 68.1Supported · #8/119 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 12 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not ranked | 61.4Supported · #18/144 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 14 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not ranked | 65.8#18/27 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 89.4#1/49 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 3 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not ranked | 67.9Supported · #18/171 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 6 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Composer 2
- $0.00175
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K3
- $0.0105
- Fits in one request
Composer 2 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Composer 2
- $0.0325
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K3
- $0.195
- Fits in one request
Composer 2 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Composer 2
- $0.135
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Kimi K3
- $0.27
- Fits in one request
Composer 2 does not fit this workload in one request. Composer 2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationComposer 2Kimi K3
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Composer 2
200K
Kimi K3
1.05M
API model ID
Composer 2
Not sourced
Kimi K3
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Composer 2
Not published
Kimi K3
$0.3 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
Composer 2
Not sourced
Kimi K3
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Composer 2
Not sourced
Kimi K3
Not sourced
Provider availability
Composer 2
Not sourced
Kimi K3
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Composer 2
Reasoning
Kimi K3
Reasoning
Weight access
Composer 2
Proprietary
Kimi K3
Pending
License
Composer 2
Proprietary
Kimi K3
Pending
Release date
Composer 2
2026-03-19
Kimi K3
2026-07-16
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.0325 vs $0.195. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.135 vs $0.27.
- Context tradeoff
- Kimi K3 has the larger documented window (1.05M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Composer 2 or Kimi K3?
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Composer 2 or Kimi K3?
Composer 2 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Composer 2 or Kimi K3?
Composer 2 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, Composer 2 or Kimi K3?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00175 on Composer 2 and $0.0105 on Kimi K3; repository review costs $0.0325 and $0.195; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.135 and $0.27. Composer 2 does not fit this workload in one request. Composer 2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Composer 2 or Kimi K3?
Kimi K3 has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 200K.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence53 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Composer 261.7%SourceKimi K3—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Composer 2—Kimi K388.3%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Composer 2—Kimi K391.2%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Composer 2—Kimi K395.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Composer 2—Kimi K373.2%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Composer 2—Kimi K384.2%SourceNot directly comparable
AutomationBench
Composer 2—Kimi K330.8%SourceNot directly comparable
JobBench
Composer 2—Kimi K352.9%SourceNot directly comparable
APEX-Agents
Composer 2—Kimi K337.6%SourceNot directly comparable
SpreadsheetBench 2
Composer 2—Kimi K334.8%SourceNot directly comparable
DECK-Bench
Composer 2—Kimi K373.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Composer 2—Kimi K380.9%SourceNot directly comparable
ApprenticeBench
Composer 2—Kimi K318%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE Multilingual
Composer 273.7%SourceKimi K3—Not directly comparable
SWE-Rebench
Composer 258%SourceKimi K3—Not directly comparable
React Native Evals
Composer 296.1%SourceKimi K3—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Composer 261.7%SourceKimi K3—Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Composer 2—Kimi K367.5%SourceNot directly comparable
CursorBench 3.2
Composer 2—Kimi K360.8%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierSWE
Composer 2—Kimi K381.2%SourceNot directly comparable
ProgramBench
Composer 2—Kimi K377.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Kimi Code Bench v2
Composer 2—Kimi K372.9%SourceNot directly comparable
sweMarathon
Composer 2—Kimi K342%SourceNot directly comparable
PostTrain Bench
Composer 2—Kimi K336.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MLS-Bench Lite
Composer 2—Kimi K348.3%SourceNot directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Composer 2—Kimi K373.7%SourceNot directly comparable
OpenHarmony Bench
Composer 2—Kimi K357.3%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Composer 2—Kimi K325.9%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Composer 2—Kimi K387.2%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Composer 2—Kimi K393.4%SourceNot directly comparable
PostTrainBench v1.1
Composer 2—Kimi K332.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Multimodal
OfficeQA Pro
Composer 2—Kimi K363.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Composer 2—Kimi K381.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ Python
Composer 2—Kimi K383.4%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Composer 2—Kimi K384.8%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
Composer 2—Kimi K391.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision
Composer 2—Kimi K394.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision w/ Python
Composer 2—Kimi K397.8%SourceNot directly comparable
BabyVision w/ Python
Composer 2—Kimi K385.7%SourceNot directly comparable
ZeroBench
Composer 2—Kimi K323.0%SourceNot directly comparable
ZeroBench w/ Python
Composer 2—Kimi K341.0%SourceNot directly comparable
WorldVQA ForceAnswer
Composer 2—Kimi K351.0%SourceNot directly comparable
OmniDocBench
Composer 2—Kimi K391.1%SourceNot directly comparable
PerceptionBench
Composer 2—Kimi K358.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Composer 2—Kimi K393.5%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA-D
Composer 2—Kimi K393.5%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
Composer 2—Kimi K356%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Composer 2—Kimi K343.5%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Composer 2—Kimi K392.9%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Composer 2—Kimi K388.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
Gray Swan IPI (15 attempts)
Composer 2—Kimi K352.7%SourceNot directly comparable
53 public results · 0 shared
Watch Composer 2 vs Kimi K3
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.
Last updated October 2, 2026