Noometry

Model comparison

Kimi K2.7 Code vs Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 43.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 6 shared benchmarks.

Kimi K2.7 Code Moonshot AI

43.3

Rank #94 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

46.0

Rank #68 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both. Kimi K2.7 Code scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 3 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Kimi K2.7 Code leads 52.9 to 37.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is APEX-Agents: 37.6% for Kimi K2.7 Code and 47.5% for Qwen3.8 27B.
  • Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper at $0.99 / $1.49 per million input/output tokens, against $0.95 / $4 for Kimi K2.7 Code.

Side by side

Kimi K2.7 CodeQwen3.8 27B
ProviderMoonshot AIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index43.346.0
Released2026-06-122026-08-14
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window262K262K
Max output262K33K
Input $ / M tokens$0.95$0.99
Output $ / M tokens$4$1.49
Results tracked1931

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads

Kimi K2.7 Code: 42.9 (#95), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44)

BenchmarkKimi K2.7 CodeQwen3.8 27B
LMArena WebDev14731593
SciCode47.5%46.6%
DeepSWE30.5%—
FrontierCode30.1%—
WeirdML54.1%—
LMArena Coding—1482
ALE-Bench886.23—

Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3.8 27B leads

Kimi K2.7 Code: 24.0 (#122), Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57)

BenchmarkKimi K2.7 CodeQwen3.8 27B
APEX-Agents37.6%47.5%
GBAEval0.9%—
Vending-Bench 25,083—

Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads

Kimi K2.7 Code: 39.0 (#61), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54)

BenchmarkKimi K2.7 CodeQwen3.8 27B
CritPt10%5.4%
Surface Evolver Bench48.8%45%
Epoch Capabilities Index149.97149.38
ARC-AGI-2—42.4%
SimpleBench57.9%—
NYT Connections (extended)—54.5%
ARC-AGI-1—87.5%
Chess Puzzles21%—
LMArena Hard Prompts—1460
DTBench—88%
LMCA—41.4%

Math Kimi K2.7 Code leads

Kimi K2.7 Code: 52.9 (#48), Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161)

BenchmarkKimi K2.7 CodeQwen3.8 27B
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)54%—
FrontierMath Tier 412.2%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202595.6%—
ProofBench—16%
LMArena Math—1456

Knowledge Kimi K2.7 Code leads

Kimi K2.7 Code: 53.5 (#57), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109)

BenchmarkKimi K2.7 CodeQwen3.8 27B
GPQA Diamond87.9%—
SimpleQA Verified36.5%—
LMArena Expert—1482

Multimodal Not comparable

Kimi K2.7 Code: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37)

BenchmarkKimi K2.7 CodeQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision—1271

Multilingual Not comparable

Kimi K2.7 Code: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60)

BenchmarkKimi K2.7 CodeQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Non-English—1430
LMArena Chinese—1504
LMArena French—1465
LMArena German—1438
LMArena Japanese—1384
LMArena Korean—1393
LMArena Russian—1415
LMArena Spanish—1448

Instruction Following Not comparable

Kimi K2.7 Code: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53)

BenchmarkKimi K2.7 CodeQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Instruction Following—1439

Long Context Not comparable

Kimi K2.7 Code: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70)

BenchmarkKimi K2.7 CodeQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Longer Query—1450

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Kimi K2.7 Code: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43)

BenchmarkKimi K2.7 CodeQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text—1441
LMArena Creative Writing—1384
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1671
LMArena Multi-Turn—1441

Frequently asked questions

Is Kimi K2.7 Code better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 43.3 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Kimi K2.7 Code or Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.99 per million input tokens and $1.49 per million output tokens; Kimi K2.7 Code lists at $0.95 and $4.

Is Kimi K2.7 Code or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 42.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 262K tokens.

How many benchmarks do Kimi K2.7 Code and Qwen3.8 27B share?

6 benchmarks have published results for both models. Kimi K2.7 Code has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper