Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Kimi K2 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Updated October 10, 2026. Rank says Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInAPI/MCP

Decision reading

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has the higher public point estimate, 64.23 versus 34.03. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 4 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
Moonshot AI logo

Moonshot AI

34.03/100

Estimated · Public rank #158

Conditional range 24.3–43.8

Model B
Alibaba logo

Alibaba

64.23/100

Estimated · Public rank #37

Conditional range 49.9–78.6

Shared results
4
Kimi K2 only
11
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next only
20
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8
Estimated: Kimi K2 and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How 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.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    Kimi K2 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited
  • Agentic work

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    Kimi K2 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited
  • Chat turn cost

    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
  • 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. Kimi K2 does not fit this workload in one request. Kimi K2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has no comparable published API token rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback
  • Repository review cost

    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

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.

—Kimi K252.4Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

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.

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

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.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

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.

Knowledge

Directional only
Kimi K2
36.6
Estimated · #123/177
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
59.4
Supported · #47/177
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 4 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Instruction following

Directional only
Kimi K2
48.4
#85/127
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
91.2
#22/127
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Kimi K2
Not ranked
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
59.5
Estimated · #24/123
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 6 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Kimi K2
Not ranked
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
52.4
Supported · #37/146
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 5 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Kimi K2
62.4
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
80.9
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Kimi K2
Not ranked
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
87.7
#8/54
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Kimi K2
Not ranked
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Kimi K2
39.5
Unranked · 5 rankable rows
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
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

Kimi K2
$0.00185
Fits in one request
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Kimi K2
$0.0375
Fits in one request
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Kimi K2
$0.157
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Kimi K2 does not fit this workload in one request. Kimi K2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has no comparable published API token 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.

Cached-input rate

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

Kimi K2

Not published

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

No comparable hosted API rate

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next model card

Documented inputs

Kimi K2

Not sourced

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Kimi K2

Not sourced

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Not sourced

Provider availability

Kimi K2

Not sourced

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Kimi K2

Non-Reasoning

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Reasoning

Weight access

Kimi K2

Proprietary

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Open Weight

License

Kimi K2

Proprietary

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Open Weight

Release date

Kimi K2

2025-07-01

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

2026-08-26

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
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has the higher public point estimate, 64.23 versus 34.03. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has the larger documented window (262K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Kimi K2 or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has the higher public point estimate, 64.23 versus 34.03. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Kimi K2 or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

Kimi K2 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Kimi K2 or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

Kimi K2 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Kimi K2 or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Kimi K2 or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has the larger documented context window: 262K, compared with 128K.

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence35 rows

Agentic

  • CoWorkBench

    Kimi K2—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next73.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Kimi K2—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next55.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Agents' Last Exam

    Kimi K2—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next51.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Kimi K2—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next73.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AndroidWorld

    Kimi K2—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next84.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Kimi K2—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next19.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Kimi K265.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v6

    Kimi K253.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next91.9%
    Source

    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads this result

  • SWE Multilingual

    Kimi K247.3%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next81%
    Source

    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Kimi K2—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next62.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Kimi K2—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next48.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    Kimi K2—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next58.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • Vision2Web

    Kimi K2—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next64.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ERQA

    Kimi K2—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next72.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LVBench

    Kimi K2—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next76.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • RealWorldQA

    Kimi K2—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next88.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision

    Kimi K2—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next90.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision w/ Python

    Kimi K2—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next95.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Kimi K2—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next84.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Kimi K2—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next90.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • MMLU

    Kimi K289.5%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    Kimi K275.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next91.7%
    Source

    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads this result

  • SuperGPQA

    Kimi K257.2%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    Kimi K281.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • SimpleQA

    Kimi K231%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Kimi K24.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next35.9%
    Source

    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads this result

  • GPQA-D

    Kimi K2—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next91.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Kimi K2—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next35.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFEval

    Kimi K289.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • IFBench

    Kimi K2—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next81.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME 2024

    Kimi K269.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME 2025

    Kimi K249.5%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • MATH-500

    Kimi K297.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Kimi K221.404%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Kimi K20.000%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

35 public results · 4 shared

Watch Kimi K2 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

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

Read a sample issue

Join 5,500+ readers.

Last updated October 10, 2026