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 K3

Moonshot AI

74.82/100

Supported · Public rank #8

90% interval 71.478.2

Kimi K3 vs MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

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

Microsoft logo
Model B
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

Microsoft

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Decision reading

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.

0 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 K3

    Kimi K3 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

    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash 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

    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash 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

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • 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

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
0
Kimi K3 only
43
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash only
3
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

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

Not comparable
Kimi K3
71.9
Supported · #4/152
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 11 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Kimi K3
68.0
Supported · #6/151
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 13 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Kimi K3
78.5
#3/20
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Kimi K3
72.0
Supported · #8/183
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Kimi K3
Not ranked
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Kimi K3
Not ranked
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Kimi K3
89.5
#1/48
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 3 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Kimi K3
Not ranked
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 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) 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 K3
$0.0105
Fits in one request
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash
API rate not published
Fits in one request

MAI-Code-1.1-Flash has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Kimi K3
$0.195
Fits in one request
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash
API rate not published
Fits in one request

MAI-Code-1.1-Flash has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Kimi K3
$0.27
Fits in one request
MAI-Code-1.1-Flash
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

MAI-Code-1.1-Flash has no comparable published API token rate.

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 K3

$0.3 per 1M cached input tokens

MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

No comparable hosted API rate

Microsoft AI MAI-Code-1.1-Flash model card

Documented inputs

Kimi K3

Not sourced

MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Kimi K3

Not sourced

MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

Not sourced

Provider availability

Kimi K3

Not sourced

MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Kimi K3

Reasoning

MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

Reasoning

Weight access

Kimi K3

Pending

MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

Proprietary

License

Kimi K3

Pending

MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

Proprietary

Release date

Kimi K3

2026-07-16

MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

2026-08-11

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
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Kimi K3 has the larger documented window (1.05M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence46 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Kimi K388.3%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Kimi K391.2%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    Kimi K395.0%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Kimi K373.2%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Kimi K384.2%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    Kimi K330.8%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Kimi K352.9%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • APEX-Agents

    Kimi K337.6%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • SpreadsheetBench 2

    Kimi K334.8%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • DECK-Bench

    Kimi K373.5%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Kimi K380.9%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Kimi K3
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash62.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • DeepSWE

    Kimi K367.5%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    Kimi K360.8%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierSWE

    Kimi K381.2%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • ProgramBench

    Kimi K377.8%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • Kimi Code Bench v2

    Kimi K372.9%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • sweMarathon

    Kimi K342%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • PostTrain Bench

    Kimi K336.6%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • MLS-Bench Lite

    Kimi K348.3%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • VulcanBench v3

    Kimi K373.7%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • OpenHarmony Bench

    Kimi K357.3%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierSWE v2

    Kimi K325.9%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Kimi K387.2%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Kimi K393.4%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Kimi K3
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash72.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Kimi K3
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash62.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Kimi K393.5%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Kimi K393.5%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Kimi K356%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Kimi K343.5%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Kimi K392.9%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Kimi K388.0%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • OfficeQA Pro

    Kimi K363.3%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    Kimi K381.6%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro w/ Python

    Kimi K383.4%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Kimi K384.8%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Kimi K391.3%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision

    Kimi K394.3%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision w/ Python

    Kimi K397.8%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision w/ Python

    Kimi K385.7%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • ZeroBench

    Kimi K323.0%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • ZeroBench w/ Python

    Kimi K341.0%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • WorldVQA ForceAnswer

    Kimi K351.0%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • OmniDocBench

    Kimi K391.1%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

  • PerceptionBench

    Kimi K358.5%
    Source
    MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Kimi K3 or MAI-Code-1.1-Flash?

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Kimi K3 or MAI-Code-1.1-Flash?

MAI-Code-1.1-Flash is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Kimi K3 or MAI-Code-1.1-Flash?

MAI-Code-1.1-Flash is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Kimi K3 or MAI-Code-1.1-Flash?

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 K3 or MAI-Code-1.1-Flash?

Kimi K3 has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 256K.

Related comparisons

Last updated September 10, 2026

Watch Kimi K3 vs MAI-Code-1.1-Flash

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.