Noometry

Model comparison

Kimi K2.7 Code vs Qwen3 32B

Kimi K2.7 Code is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.3 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 6 shared benchmarks.

Kimi K2.7 Code Moonshot AI

43.3

Rank #94 Confirmed

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.2

Rank #172 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both. Kimi K2.7 Code scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen3 32B in 1 category; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Kimi K2.7 Code leads 39.0 to 20.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 95.6% for Kimi K2.7 Code and 66.9% for Qwen3 32B.
  • Qwen3 32B is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 per million input/output tokens, against $0.95 / $4 for Kimi K2.7 Code.
  • Kimi K2.7 Code accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

Kimi K2.7 CodeQwen3 32B
ProviderMoonshot AIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index43.339.2
Released2026-06-122025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window262K131K
Max output262K16K
Input $ / M tokens$0.95$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$4$2.80
Results tracked1926

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Kimi K2.7 Code leads

Kimi K2.7 Code: 42.9 (#95), Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)

BenchmarkKimi K2.7 CodeQwen3 32B
SciCode47.5%35.4%
DeepSWE30.5%—
FrontierCode30.1%—
Aider Polyglot—40%
LMArena WebDev1473—
WeirdML54.1%—
LMArena Coding—1358
ALE-Bench886.23—

Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3 32B leads

Kimi K2.7 Code: 24.0 (#122), Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)

BenchmarkKimi K2.7 CodeQwen3 32B
APEX-Agents37.6%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—48.7%
GBAEval0.9%—
Vending-Bench 25,083—

Reasoning Kimi K2.7 Code leads

Kimi K2.7 Code: 39.0 (#61), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)

BenchmarkKimi K2.7 CodeQwen3 32B
CritPt10%0.3%
Chess Puzzles21%5%
Epoch Capabilities Index149.97138.51
SimpleBench57.9%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark—54.9%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1334
DTBench—67.5%
LMCA—17.3%
Surface Evolver Bench48.8%—

Math Kimi K2.7 Code leads

Kimi K2.7 Code: 52.9 (#48), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)

BenchmarkKimi K2.7 CodeQwen3 32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202595.6%66.9%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)54%—
FrontierMath Tier 412.2%—
LMArena Math—1399

Knowledge Kimi K2.7 Code leads

Kimi K2.7 Code: 53.5 (#57), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)

BenchmarkKimi K2.7 CodeQwen3 32B
GPQA Diamond87.9%65.7%
SimpleQA Verified36.5%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—5.9%
LMArena Expert—1362

Multilingual Not comparable

Kimi K2.7 Code: —, Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)

BenchmarkKimi K2.7 CodeQwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English—1317
LMArena Chinese—1357
LMArena German—1341
LMArena Russian—1311

Instruction Following Not comparable

Kimi K2.7 Code: —, Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)

BenchmarkKimi K2.7 CodeQwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following—1305

Long Context Not comparable

Kimi K2.7 Code: —, Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)

BenchmarkKimi K2.7 CodeQwen3 32B
Fiction.LiveBench—74.2%
LMArena Longer Query—1327

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Kimi K2.7 Code: —, Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)

BenchmarkKimi K2.7 CodeQwen3 32B
LMArena Text—1340
LMArena Creative Writing—1297
LMArena Multi-Turn—1331

Frequently asked questions

Is Kimi K2.7 Code better than Qwen3 32B?

Kimi K2.7 Code is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.3 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Kimi K2.7 Code or Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; Kimi K2.7 Code lists at $0.95 and $4.

Is Kimi K2.7 Code or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

Kimi K2.7 Code scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.9 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Kimi K2.7 Code does, with 262K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Kimi K2.7 Code and Qwen3 32B share?

6 benchmarks have published results for both models. Kimi K2.7 Code has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper