Model comparison
Kimi K2 vs Qwen3.5 397B
Head-to-head evidence from 11 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Kimi K2 #189 (Supported); Qwen3.5 397B #71 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Kimi K2 and Qwen3.5 397B share 11 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Kimi K2; 44 to Qwen3.5 397B.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 11
- Kimi K2 only
- 3
- Qwen3.5 397B only
- 44
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Qwen3.5 397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Kimi K2 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 11 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Qwen3.5 397B is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 57.01 to 27.19. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.5 397B's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 90.6 against 16.1.
Qwen3.5 397B is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.60 input / $3.60 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.60 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Kimi K2.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Kimi K2 | Δ | Qwen3.5 397B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Kimi K216.1 | Margin→ 74.5 | Qwen3.5 397B90.6 |
| Agentic | Kimi K2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B56.5 |
| Coding | Kimi K2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B66.5 |
| Reasoning | Kimi K2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B63.2 |
| Knowledge | Kimi K2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B56.6 |
| Multilingual | Kimi K2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B84.7 |
| Multimodal | Kimi K2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B79.6 |
| Inst. Following | Kimi K2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B92.6 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Kimi K2 | Qwen3.5 397B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Kimi K2$0.6 input / $2.5 output | Qwen3.5 397B$0.6 input / $3.6 output | Kimi K2 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Kimi K243 tok/s | Qwen3.5 397B96 tok/s | Qwen3.5 397B has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Kimi K21.51 s | Qwen3.5 397B2.44 s | Kimi K2 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Kimi K2128K | Qwen3.5 397B128K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2 | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 61.1% | 95.6% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 52.5% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 62% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 56.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 51.8% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 68.4% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 43.7% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 37.6% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 36.3% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 46.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 74.2% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 74.0% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 46.76% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 14.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 19.9% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 15.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 23.1% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 962 | Not comparable |
Coding5 benchmarks
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2 | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 19.4% | 33.7% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 76.6% | 89.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 7.0% | 27.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -27.5% | -29.8% | Kimi K2 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 26.8% | 31.4% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 74.2% | 89.1% | Kimi K2 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 88.4% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 70.4% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 87.8% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.9% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 28.7% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.5 397B wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2 | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 21.404% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 0.000% | — | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | — | 93.3% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 94.8% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 87.9% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 80.9% | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi K2 | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1083 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 79% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 88.6% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.7% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 65.6% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 95.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 77.3% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Kimi K2 or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 57.01 to 27.19.
Which is better for math, Kimi K2 or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 90.6 versus 16.1. Kimi K2 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.