Skip to main content
Radar

Keep up with the models you depend on. Follow price changes, retirements, and API updates.Follow the models you depend on.

Follow model changes
Moonshot AI logo
Model A
Kimi K2.7 Code

Moonshot AI

65.49/100

Estimated · Public rank #36

90% interval 49.071.2

Kimi K2.7 Code vs Qwen3.5 397B

Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Alibaba logo
Model B
Qwen3.5 397B

Alibaba

54.7/100

Estimated · Public rank #100

90% interval 43.266.2

Decision reading

Kimi K2.7 Code has the higher public score estimate, 65.49 versus 54.7, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

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

    Kimi K2.7 Code

    Kimi K2.7 Code has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Qwen3.5 397B

    Qwen3.5 397B 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

    Qwen3.5 397B

    Qwen3.5 397B 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

    Qwen3.5 397B is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    Kimi K2.7 Code and Qwen3.5 397B are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Cache-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. Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Kimi K2.7 Code has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
1
Kimi K2.7 Code only
7
Qwen3.5 397B only
37
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

4 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign 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

Directional only
Kimi K2.7 Code
46.8
Estimated · #72/152
Qwen3.5 397B
46.8
Estimated · #71/152
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 3 vs 13 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Directional only
Kimi K2.7 Code
50.9
Supported · #51/151
Qwen3.5 397B
50.2
Estimated · #59/151
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 5 vs 3 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
Kimi K2.7 Code
61.6
Estimated · #31/183
Qwen3.5 397B
50.2
Estimated · #77/183
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 6 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Instruction following

Directional only
Kimi K2.7 Code
76.6
#58/123
Qwen3.5 397B
0.0
#123/123
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Kimi K2.7 Code
75.5
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Qwen3.5 397B
59.8
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Kimi K2.7 Code
Not ranked
Qwen3.5 397B
74.2
Unranked · 5 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Kimi K2.7 Code
Not ranked
Qwen3.5 397B
69.7
#5/12
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Kimi K2.7 Code
Not ranked
Qwen3.5 397B
63.0
#27/48
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

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

Kimi K2.7 Code
$0.00295
Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 397B
$0.0024
Fits in one request

Qwen3.5 397B has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Kimi K2.7 Code
$0.0595
Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 397B
$0.0408
Fits in one request

Qwen3.5 397B has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Kimi K2.7 Code
$0.249
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Qwen3.5 397B
$0.168
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Kimi K2.7 Code has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.5 397B 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.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Kimi K2.7 Code

256K

Qwen3.5 397B

128K

API model ID

Kimi K2.7 Code

Not sourced

Qwen3.5 397B

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Kimi K2.7 Code

Not published

Qwen3.5 397B

Not published

Documented inputs

Kimi K2.7 Code

Not sourced

Qwen3.5 397B

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Kimi K2.7 Code

Not sourced

Qwen3.5 397B

Not sourced

Provider availability

Kimi K2.7 Code

Not sourced

Qwen3.5 397B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Kimi K2.7 Code

Reasoning

Qwen3.5 397B

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Kimi K2.7 Code

Open Weight

Qwen3.5 397B

Open Weight

License

Kimi K2.7 Code

Open Weight

Qwen3.5 397B

Open Weight

Release date

Kimi K2.7 Code

2026-06-12

Qwen3.5 397B

2026-02-16

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
Kimi K2.7 Code has the higher public score estimate, 65.49 versus 54.7, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.0595 vs $0.0408. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.249 vs $0.168.
Context tradeoff
Kimi K2.7 Code has the larger documented window (256K).

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.

Kimi K2.7 Code
API / mo$3,713
Self-host / mo$18,221
Break-even326M/day
Qwen3.5 397B
API / mo$3,150
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Model the full break-even

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence45 rows

Agentic

  • Kimi Claw 24/7

    Kimi K2.7 Code46.9%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Kimi K2.7 Code76%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B46.1%
    Source

    Kimi K2.7 Code leads this result

  • MCP Mark Verified

    Kimi K2.7 Code81.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B52.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B62%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B56.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • QwenClawBench

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B51.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B68.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VITA-Bench

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B43.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepPlanning

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B37.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B36.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP-Tasks

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B74.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B74.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B46.76%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B14.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Kimi Code Bench v2

    Kimi K2.7 Code62.0%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B

    Not directly comparable

  • ProgramBench

    Kimi K2.7 Code53.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B

    Not directly comparable

  • MLS-Bench Lite

    Kimi K2.7 Code35.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    Kimi K2.7 Code49.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B

    Not directly comparable

  • OpenHarmony Bench

    Kimi K2.7 Code52.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B76.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v6

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B83.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B50.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • LongBench v2

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B63.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AI-Needle

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B68.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B88.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SuperGPQA

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B70.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B87.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Redux

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B94.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • C-Eval

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B93%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B28.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME26

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B93.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2025

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B94.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Nov 2025

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B92.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B87.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMAnswerBench

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B80.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multilingual

  • MMLU-ProX

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B84.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NOVA-63

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B59.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B79%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B88.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B80.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B84.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B65.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • V*

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B95.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFEval

    Kimi K2.7 Code
    Qwen3.5 397B92.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Kimi K2.7 Code or Qwen3.5 397B?

Kimi K2.7 Code has the higher public score estimate, 65.49 versus 54.7, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Kimi K2.7 Code or Qwen3.5 397B?

Kimi K2.7 Code scores higher for coding on the public lane, 50.9 to 50.2. Qwen3.5 397B is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Kimi K2.7 Code or Qwen3.5 397B?

Kimi K2.7 Code and Qwen3.5 397B are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, Kimi K2.7 Code or Qwen3.5 397B?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00295 on Kimi K2.7 Code and $0.0024 on Qwen3.5 397B; repository review costs $0.0595 and $0.0408; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.249 and $0.168. Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Kimi K2.7 Code has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Kimi K2.7 Code or Qwen3.5 397B?

Kimi K2.7 Code has the larger documented context window: 256K, compared with 128K.

Related comparisons

Last updated September 10, 2026

Watch Kimi K2.7 Code vs Qwen3.5 397B

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.