Kimi K2.7 Code vs Sakana Namazu: which should you choose in 2026?
Kimi K2.7 Code (by Moonshot AI) and Sakana Namazu (by Sakana AI) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
Kimi K2.7 Code is about 1.2× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($1.40 vs $1.71 per 1M tokens).
Choose Kimi K2.7 Code if…
- • lower blended API cost matters for your workload
Choose Sakana Namazu if…
- • your own prompt tests favor its output; shared comparable evidence does not identify a unique advantage
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.
Performance benchmarks
Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.
| Benchmark | Kimi K2.7 Code | Sakana Namazu |
|---|---|---|
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 | — | — |
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 | — | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | — | — |
A long-horizon software-engineering benchmark with 113 original tasks graded by hand-written tests. Pass@1 | 31.0%±1.0 DataCurve | — |
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 | — | — |
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 | — | — |
A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench. Weighted peer-assessment score | — | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | — | — |
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 | — | — |
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 | 68.4% LiveBench | — |
| Arena preference scores | ||
Human preference score for code and web development | 1474 ±10 | — |
Benchmark sources
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09. Arena data last refreshed Aug 12, 2026.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | Kimi K2.7 Code | Sakana Namazu |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | Moonshot AI | Sakana AI |
| API provider | MoonshotAI | Sakana |
| Input context | 262,144 tokens | 262,144 tokens |
| Maximum output | 262,144 tokens | 65,536 tokens |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Jun 12, 2026 | Aug 11, 2026 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text, Image | Text, Image, File |
| Outputs | Text | Text |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Image Generation | No | No |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API pricing | ||
| Input (per 1M tokens) | $0.70 | $0.95 |
| Output (per 1M tokens) | $3.50 | $4.00 |
| Blended 3:1 input/output | $1.40 | $1.71 |
| API performance | ||
| p95 latency | Not measured | Not measured |
| Output throughput | Not measured | Not 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 11, 2026.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing Kimi K2.7 Code from Moonshot AI with Sakana Namazu from Sakana AI? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | Kimi K2.7 Code | Sakana Namazu | AI Images | AI Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writingmate Pro Most popular | $20/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Writingmate Ultimate Power users | $60/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Kimi K2.7 Code vs Sakana Namazu FAQ
Which is better, Kimi K2.7 Code or Sakana Namazu?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. Kimi K2.7 Code is about 1.2× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($1.40 vs $1.71 per 1M tokens).
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
Kimi K2.7 Code is about 1.2× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($1.40 vs $1.71 per 1M tokens).
Which model supports more context?
The published context windows are close enough that this page does not treat the difference as a material advantage.
Can I switch between Kimi K2.7 Code and Sakana Namazu?
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.
Related comparisons
More Kimi K2.7 Code comparisons
Seed-2.0-Code
ByteDance
Seed 2.0 Code is a model from ByteDance Seed optimized for agentic coding.
GPT-5.3-Codex
OpenAI
GPT-5.3-Codex is OpenAI’s most advanced agentic coding model, combining the frontier software engineering performance of GPT-5.2-Codex with the broader reasoning and professional knowledge capabilities of GPT-5.2.
GPT-5.2-Codex
OpenAI
GPT-5.2-Codex is an upgraded version of GPT-5.1-Codex optimized for software engineering and coding workflows.
GPT-5.1-Codex-Max
OpenAI
GPT-5.1-Codex-Max is OpenAI’s latest agentic coding model, designed for long-running, high-context software development tasks.
Muse Glimmer 30B
Meta
Muse Glimmer 30B is a dense, open-weight multimodal model from Meta Superintelligence Labs, distilled from Muse Spark and optimized for autonomous agents on consumer hardware.
Muse Spark 1.2
Meta
Muse Spark 1.2 is a reasoning model from Meta, designed for complex agentic tasks.
More Sakana Namazu comparisons
Muse Spark 1.2
Meta
Muse Spark 1.2 is a reasoning model from Meta, designed for complex agentic tasks.
Claude Opus 5
Anthropic
Claude Opus 5 is Anthropic’s flagship model for demanding reasoning, coding, and long-horizon agentic work.
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Gemini 3.6 Flash is a high-efficiency model from Google for coding, agentic workflows, and web and app development.
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is a high-efficiency model from Google with upgraded agentic capabilities.
Muse Spark 1.1
Meta
Muse Spark 1.1 is a multimodal reasoning model from Meta, built for agentic tasks.
GPT-5.6 Luna Pro
OpenAI
GPT-5.6 Luna Pro is the same underlying model as GPT-5.6 Luna, served with reasoning.mode set to pro for higher-quality responses on complex tasks.