Kimi K3vsQwen3.8-Flash-Next
Kimi K3 | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | 2.8T | 125B |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | 1M | 262k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $3.00 | — |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $15.00 | — |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | $0.30 | — |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $2.55Makora | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $12.75Makora | — |
| Benchmarks | ||
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | 69% | 58.7% |
JobBenchProfessional tool use — Tests the AI on professional workplace tasks that require using real work tools — the kind of multi-step jobs an office worker handles. Higher is better. | 52.9% | 55.7% |
Toolathlon-VerifiedPersonal tool use — Tests how well the AI uses everyday personal tools and apps to get things done — a human-checked version of Toolathlon. Higher is better. | 73.2% | 73.5% |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | 43.5% | 35.9% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 93.5% | 91.7% |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 84.8% | 84.6% |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 73% | — |
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | — | 62.5% |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | — | 81% |
DeepSWE 1.0Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. Higher is better. | 67.5% | — |
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | 92% | — |
Supabase Evals · with skillsSupabase coding — Supabase's own open benchmark: a coding agent is dropped into a real Supabase project and asked to do real work — set up a schema, fix a broken security policy, debug an Edge Function — and every run is checked against a live Supabase stack. This is the headline number, where the agent has Supabase's own skills loaded, as most people building on Supabase would. The score is the share of scenarios it got right. Higher is better. | 86.4% | — |
Supabase Evals · no skillsSupabase coding — The same Supabase scenarios, but with none of Supabase's skills loaded — so it measures what the model already knows about building on Supabase, rather than how well it follows Supabase's supplied instructions. Higher is better. | 90.9% | — |
NL2Repo-BenchRepo-level code generation — Tests whether the AI can turn a natural-language requirement into working code across an entire repository, not just produce a single function or patch. Higher is better. | — | 48.1% |
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | — | 91.9% |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 88.3% | — |
MCP AtlasMulti-step tool use — Can the AI chain together many tools and steps to complete one bigger task, rather than doing just a single thing? Higher is better. | 84.2% | — |
CoWorkBenchLong-horizon office work — Tests long-running office tasks across fields including computer science, finance, law, medicine, and other productivity work. Higher is better. | — | 73.9% |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 91.2% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 56% | — |
IFBenchInstruction following — Tests whether the AI can follow detailed instructions and satisfy multiple constraints at once. Higher is better. | — | 81.3% |
OSWorld 2.0Agentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.0 is a harder, refreshed task set. Higher is better. | — | 19.4% |
Agent's Last Exam · pass@1Agentic computer use — A hard set of desktop and operating-system tasks an AI agent has to finish by looking at the screen and working the machine itself. The score is the share it passes outright — partial credit does not count. Higher is better. | — | 24.3% |
Agent's Last Exam · scoreAgentic computer use — The graded score on the same desktop and operating-system tasks in Agent's Last Exam, giving partial credit for progress beyond the strict pass-or-fail result. Higher is better. | — | 51.2% |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 1668 | — |
LVBenchVideo understanding — Can the AI follow a very long video — up to an hour — and answer questions that need details from far apart in it? Higher is better. | — | 76.6% |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 81.6% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Moonshot AI | Qwen |
| Release date | Jul 16 2026 | Aug 26 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
Other comparisons
Kimi K3vsClaude Opus 5Qwen3.8-Flash-NextvsClaude Opus 5Kimi K3vsGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.8-Flash-NextvsGPT-5.6 SolKimi K3vsGemini 3.7 FlashQwen3.8-Flash-NextvsGemini 3.7 FlashKimi K3vsMuse GlimmerQwen3.8-Flash-NextvsMuse GlimmerKimi K3vsGrok 4.6Qwen3.8-Flash-NextvsGrok 4.6Kimi K3vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Qwen3.8-Flash-NextvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813
Frequently asked questions
Kimi K3 leads Qwen3.8-Flash-Next on 4 of the 6 benchmarks they both report. Only Kimi K3 has a verified first-party API price: $3.00 per million input tokens and $15.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Qwen3.8-Flash-Next. Kimi K3 shipped 41 days before Qwen3.8-Flash-Next, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Kimi K3 has 2.8T parameters, while Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has 125B. Context windows are 1M (Kimi K3) vs 262k (Qwen3.8-Flash-Next).
On DeepSWE 1.1, Kimi K3 leads at 69% vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next at 58.7%. On JobBench, Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads at 55.7% vs Kimi K3 at 52.9%. On Toolathlon-Verified, Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads at 73.5% vs Kimi K3 at 73.2%. On Humanity's Last Exam · no tools, Kimi K3 leads at 43.5% vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next at 35.9%. On GPQA Diamond, Kimi K3 leads at 93.5% vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next at 91.7%. On CharXiv Reasoning, Kimi K3 leads at 84.8% vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next at 84.6%.
Kimi K3 was released by Moonshot AI on Jul 16 2026.
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next was released by Qwen on Aug 26 2026.
Kimi K3 leads on DeepSWE 1.1 — Kimi K3 69% vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 58.7%.
Kimi K3 leads on Humanity's Last Exam · no tools — Kimi K3 43.5% vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 35.9%.
Only Kimi K3 has a verified first-party API price: $3.00 per million input tokens and $15.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Qwen3.8-Flash-Next. Rates are pay-as-you-go API prices verified on August 18, 2026.
Kimi K3 has a 1M context window; Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has 262k.