Coding
Like-for-like- Kimi K2.7 Code
- 50.9
- Supported · #51/151
- Qwen3.7 Max
- 49.3
- Supported · #64/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 5 vs 10 public rows
- Reading
- Kimi K2.7 Code leads · intervals overlap
Keep up with the models you depend on. Follow price changes, retirements, and API updates.Follow the models you depend on.
Follow model changesUpdated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Qwen3.7 Max has the higher public score estimate, 67.08 versus 65.49, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
2 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
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.
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Kimi K2.7 Code
Kimi K2.7 Code leads on the public coding lane, 50.9 to 49.3, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Confidence: limited
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Qwen3.7 Max
Qwen3.7 Max has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Kimi K2.7 Code is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: rate-fallback
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
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.
| Category | Kimi K2.7 Code | Qwen3.7 Max | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 50.9Supported · #51/151 | 49.3Supported · #64/151 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 5 vs 10 public rows | Kimi K2.7 Code leads · intervals overlap |
| Agentic | 46.8Estimated · #72/152 | 41.2Supported · #110/152 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 3 vs 10 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 61.6Estimated · #31/183 | 61.7Supported · #28/183 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 0 vs 9 public rows | Directional only |
| Instruction following | 76.6#58/123 | 91.1#16/123 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 75.5Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 75.1Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 82.1Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | 100.0#1/12 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 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) 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.
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.
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.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.7 Max has no comparable published API token rate.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.7 Max has no comparable published API token rate.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Kimi K2.7 Code has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.7 Max has no comparable published API token rate.
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Kimi K2.7 Code
256K
Qwen3.7 Max
1M
Kimi K2.7 Code
Not sourced
Qwen3.7 Max
Not sourced
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Kimi K2.7 Code
Not published
Qwen3.7 Max
No comparable hosted API rate
Kimi K2.7 Code
Not sourced
Qwen3.7 Max
Not sourced
Kimi K2.7 Code
Not sourced
Qwen3.7 Max
Not sourced
Kimi K2.7 Code
Not sourced
Qwen3.7 Max
Not sourced
Kimi K2.7 Code
Reasoning
Qwen3.7 Max
Reasoning
Kimi K2.7 Code
Open Weight
Qwen3.7 Max
Proprietary
Kimi K2.7 Code
Open Weight
Qwen3.7 Max
Proprietary
Kimi K2.7 Code
2026-06-12
Qwen3.7 Max
2026-05-16
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Kimi Claw 24/7
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Qwen3.7 Max leads this result
MCP Mark Verified
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Not directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Not directly comparable
BFCL v4
Not directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Not directly comparable
Kimi Code Bench v2
Not directly comparable
ProgramBench
Not directly comparable
MLS-Bench Lite
Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Not directly comparable
OpenHarmony Bench
Shared sourceQwen3.7 Max leads this result
SWE-bench Verified
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Not directly comparable
SciCode
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Not directly comparable
GPQA
Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Not directly comparable
HLE
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Not directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Not directly comparable
MMMLU
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Not directly comparable
MMLU-ProX
Not directly comparable
NOVA-63
Not directly comparable
INCLUDE
Not directly comparable
MAXIFE
Not directly comparable
PolyMath
Not directly comparable
Qwen3.7 Max has the higher public score estimate, 67.08 versus 65.49, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Kimi K2.7 Code leads the public coding lane, 50.9 to 49.3, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Kimi K2.7 Code scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 46.8 to 41.2. Kimi K2.7 Code is 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.
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Qwen3.7 Max has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.
Last updated September 10, 2026
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.