Agentic
Not comparable- Inkling
- 69.4
- Kimi K2.7 Code
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Inkling vs Kimi K2.7 Code
Updated August 29, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Inkling has the higher public score estimate, 67.02 versus 54.44, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
1 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Inkling
Inkling has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Kimi K2.7 Code
Kimi K2.7 Code has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Inkling
Inkling has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Kimi K2.7 Code has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Kimi K2.7 Code
Kimi K2.7 Code has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
14 Inkling only
1 Shared
7 Kimi K2.7 Code only
- Shared results
- 1
- Inkling only
- 14
- Kimi K2.7 Code only
- 7
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Coding
Not comparable- Inkling
- 68.6
- Kimi K2.7 Code
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Inkling
- Not measured
- Kimi K2.7 Code
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Inkling
- 51.6
- Kimi K2.7 Code
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Inkling
- 97.1
- Kimi K2.7 Code
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Inkling
- Not measured
- Kimi K2.7 Code
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Inkling
- 76.5
- Kimi K2.7 Code
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Inkling
- 79.8
- Kimi K2.7 Code
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Inkling | Kimi K2.7 Code | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 69.4 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 68.6 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 51.6 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 97.1 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 76.5 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 79.8 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
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.
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
- Inkling
- $0.00421
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K2.7 Code
- $0.00295
- Fits in one request
Kimi K2.7 Code has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Inkling
- $0.10754
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K2.7 Code
- $0.0595
- Fits in one request
Kimi K2.7 Code has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Inkling
- $0.159
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K2.7 Code
- $0.249
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Inkling has the lower modeled cost
Kimi K2.7 Code has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationInklingKimi K2.7 Code
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Inkling
1M
Kimi K2.7 Code
256K
API model ID
Inkling
Not sourced
Kimi K2.7 Code
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Inkling
$0.374 per 1M cached input tokens
Kimi K2.7 Code
Not published
Documented inputs
Inkling
Not sourced
Kimi K2.7 Code
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Inkling
Not sourced
Kimi K2.7 Code
Not sourced
Provider availability
Inkling
Not sourced
Kimi K2.7 Code
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Inkling
Hybrid
Kimi K2.7 Code
Reasoning
Weight access
Inkling
Open Weight
Kimi K2.7 Code
Open Weight
License
Inkling
Open Weight
Kimi K2.7 Code
Open Weight
Release date
Inkling
2026-07-15
Kimi K2.7 Code
2026-06-12
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
- Inkling has the higher public score estimate, 67.02 versus 54.44, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.10754 vs $0.0595. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.159 vs $0.249.
- Context tradeoff
- Inkling has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Inkling
API / mo$4,913
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Kimi K2.7 Code
API / mo$3,713
Self-host / mo$18,221
Break-even326M/day
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence22 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Inkling63.8%SourceKimi K2.7 Code—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Inkling77.1%SourceKimi K2.7 Code—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Inkling74.1%SourceKimi K2.7 Code76%SourceKimi K2.7 Code leads this result
Kimi Claw 24/7
Inkling—Kimi K2.7 Code46.9%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Mark Verified
Inkling—Kimi K2.7 Code81.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Inkling77.6%SourceKimi K2.7 Code—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Inkling54.3%SourceKimi K2.7 Code—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Inkling63.8%SourceKimi K2.7 Code—Not directly comparable
Kimi Code Bench v2
Inkling—Kimi K2.7 Code62.0%SourceNot directly comparable
ProgramBench
Inkling—Kimi K2.7 Code53.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MLS-Bench Lite
Inkling—Kimi K2.7 Code35.1%SourceNot directly comparable
cursorBench32
Inkling—Kimi K2.7 Code49.7%SourceNot directly comparable
OpenHarmony Bench
Inkling—Kimi K2.7 Code52.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
Math
AIME26
Inkling97.1%SourceKimi K2.7 Code—Not directly comparable
Multimodal
Instruction following
IFBench
Inkling79.8%SourceKimi K2.7 Code—Not directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Inkling or Kimi K2.7 Code?
Inkling has the higher public score estimate, 67.02 versus 54.44, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Inkling or Kimi K2.7 Code?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Inkling or Kimi K2.7 Code?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Inkling or Kimi K2.7 Code?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00421 on Inkling and $0.00295 on Kimi K2.7 Code; repository review costs $0.10754 and $0.0595; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.159 and $0.249. Kimi K2.7 Code has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Inkling or Kimi K2.7 Code?
Inkling has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 29, 2026
Watch Inkling vs Kimi K2.7 Code
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.