WritingmateWritingmate
Model Comparison

Kimi K2.7 Code vs Qwen3.8 MaxWhich Is Better in 2026?

Kimi K2.7 Code vs Qwen3.8 Max: which should you choose in 2026?

Kimi K2.7 Code (by Moonshotai) and Qwen3.8 Max (by Qwen) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.

Kimi K2.7 Code outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Qwen3.8 Max is better at 1 benchmark (LiveBench).

Qwen3.8 Max leads every shared, protocol-compatible benchmark shown here.

Kimi K2.7 Code is about 2.1× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($1.40 vs $3.00 per 1M tokens).

Qwen3.8 Max has the larger context window (1,000,000 tokens vs 262,144 tokens).

Choose Kimi K2.7 Code if…

  • lower blended API cost matters for your workload

Choose Qwen3.8 Max if…

  • you want the model leading more of the 1 shared benchmark
  • you work with longer documents, transcripts, or codebases

The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.

vs

Performance benchmarks

Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.

Kimi K2.7 Code and Qwen3.8 Max benchmark results
BenchmarkKimi K2.7 CodeQwen3.8 Max
AutomationBench-AA

A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework.

Guardrail-aware score

BrowseComp

A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing.

Accuracy

OSWorld-Verified

A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state.

Mean task reward

DeepSWE 1.1

A long-horizon software-engineering benchmark with 113 original tasks graded by hand-written tests.

Pass@1

Protocols differ or are incompletely disclosed; not counted as a controlled win

31.0%±1.0
DataCurve
57.0%±3.0
DataCurve
SWE-Bench Verified

A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests.

Resolved

Terminal-Bench 2.1

Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol.

Mean task success

GPQA Diamond

The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry.

Accuracy

Humanity's Last Exam

A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged.

Accuracy

LiveBench

A contamination-resistant benchmark refreshed on a fixed release cadence. Scores from different LiveBench releases must never be compared as the same protocol.

Mean of category averages

Arena preference scores
Arena (Code/WebDev)

Human preference score for code and web development

1473 ±10

Pricing, capabilities, and model facts

Kimi K2.7 Code and Qwen3.8 Max model facts
FeatureKimi K2.7 CodeQwen3.8 Max
Context & model facts
DeveloperMoonshotaiQwen
API providerMoonshotAIQwen
Input context262,144 tokens1,000,000 tokens
Maximum output262,144 tokens131,072 tokens
Released
Added to WritingmateJun 12, 2026Aug 3, 2026
LicenseModified MIT
Knowledge cutoff
Capabilities
InputsText, ImageText, Image, Video
OutputsTextText
Tool useYesYes
ReasoningYesYes
VisionYesYes
Image GenerationNoNo
Video GenerationNoNo
API pricing
Input (per 1M tokens)$0.70$2.00
Output (per 1M tokens)$3.50$6.00
Blended 3:1 input/output$1.40$3.00
API performance
p95 latencyNot measuredNot measured
Output throughputNot measuredNot measured
Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table.

Data sources

  • Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)

Catalog data last updated Aug 3, 2026.

Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?

Comparing Kimi K2.7 Code from Moonshotai with Qwen3.8 Max from Qwen? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.

Subscription-plan access for Kimi K2.7 Code and Qwen3.8 Max
PlanPriceKimi K2.7 CodeQwen3.8 MaxAI ImagesAI Video
Writingmate Pro
Most popular
$20/moIncludedIncludedNano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & moreSora 2, VEO 3.1
Writingmate Ultimate
Power users
$60/moIncludedIncludedNano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & moreSora 2, VEO 3.1

Kimi K2.7 Code vs Qwen3.8 Max FAQ

Which is better, Kimi K2.7 Code or Qwen3.8 Max?

Kimi K2.7 Code outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Qwen3.8 Max is better at 1 benchmark (LiveBench). Qwen3.8 Max leads every shared, protocol-compatible benchmark shown here. Kimi K2.7 Code is about 2.1× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($1.40 vs $3.00 per 1M tokens). Qwen3.8 Max has the larger context window (1,000,000 tokens vs 262,144 tokens).

Which model is cheaper to use through an API?

Kimi K2.7 Code is about 2.1× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($1.40 vs $3.00 per 1M tokens).

Which model supports more context?

Qwen3.8 Max has the larger context window (1,000,000 tokens vs 262,144 tokens).

Can I switch between Kimi K2.7 Code and Qwen3.8 Max?

Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.