Noometry

Model comparison

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo vs Qwen3.7 Max

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 45.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo Moonshot AI

45.8

Rank #70 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

51.5

Rank #42 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.7 Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 49.2 to 32.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 83.1% for Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo and 95.6% for Qwen3.7 Max.
  • Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Kimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.7 Max
ProviderMoonshot AIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index45.851.5
Released2025-11-062026-05-19
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$2.50
Output $ / M tokens—$7.50
Results tracked2133

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.7 Max leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 38.4 (#178), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.4 (#45)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.7 Max
LMArena WebDev13221515
LMArena Coding14541498
SWE-bench Verified—77.3%
SciCode—48.8%
ALE-Bench—1,189

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 22.1 (#135)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.7 Max
GBAEval—0.4%

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Max leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 32.5 (#75), Qwen3.7 Max: 49.2 (#38)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.7 Max
Chess Puzzles20%19%
LMArena Hard Prompts14281483
SimpleBench—70.4%
NYT Connections (extended)—85.1%
CritPt—13.4%
EBR-Bench—9.5%
Mystery Game Puzzles—32%
DTBench—92.3%
LMCA—44%
Epoch Capabilities Index—153.68

Math Qwen3.7 Max leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 47.4 (#68), Qwen3.7 Max: 62.4 (#32)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.7 Max
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202583.1%95.6%
LMArena Math14291490
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—64.6%
FrontierMath Tier 4—34.1%
ProofBench—26%

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Max leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 50.9 (#69), Qwen3.7 Max: 61.6 (#28)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.7 Max
GPQA Diamond84.2%90.9%
LMArena Expert14391488
SimpleQA Verified—55.8%

Multilingual Qwen3.7 Max leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 51.4 (#109), Qwen3.7 Max: 56.9 (#15)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Non-English13981474
LMArena Chinese14561530
LMArena Russian13911484
LMArena French1425—
LMArena German1390—
LMArena Japanese1357—
LMArena Korean1330—
LMArena Spanish1406—

Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Max leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 74.0 (#109), Qwen3.7 Max: 76.7 (#38)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Instruction Following14031460

Long Context Qwen3.7 Max leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 43.2 (#102), Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#40)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Longer Query14151482

Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Max leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 60.0 (#104), Qwen3.7 Max: 65.0 (#54)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Text14151476
LMArena Creative Writing13741449
LMArena Multi-Turn14141481
EQ-Bench 4—1110

Frequently asked questions

Is Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo better than Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 45.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.4 versus 38.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo and Qwen3.7 Max share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.

Related comparisons

Go deeper