Granite 4.1 3B vs Kimi K2.7 Code

At a Glance

Compare
Kimi K2.7 CodeMoonshot AI
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
CostLower is better · Published-token output estimateUnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort#9 of 44$0.042 per LiveBench case
Pricing and Limits
Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokensNot reported$0.68Deepinfra · Sep 22, 2026
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokensNot reported$3.21Openrouter · Sep 22, 2026
Context windowMaximum documented tokens131K262K
Model facts checkedAug 28, 2026View model evidence →Sep 3, 2026View model evidence →

Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →

Available Benchmarks

All benchmark results →
No Protocol-Matched Benchmark Yet.Results appear here only when both models share the same benchmark version, metric, evaluation protocol, and evidence class.

Side-by-Side Facts

Fieldgranite-4.1-3bKimi K2.7 Code
DeveloperIBMMoonshot AI
FamilyGranite 4 1 3bKimi K2 7
Modelgranite-4.1-3bKimi K2.7 Code
Versiongranite-4.1-3bKimi K2.7 Code
Lifecycleactiveactive
Released2026-04-292026-06-11
Knowledge cutoffUnknownUnknown
Input modalitiesTextText, Image, Video
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window131K262K
Total parameters3.4B1T
Active parametersUnknown32B
Licenseapache-2.0modified-mit
Open weightsYesYes
API availableUnknownYes
Self-hostableYesYes
Provider accessUnknownDeepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, toolsagents, chat, coding, reasoning, tools, vision

Granite 4.1 3B Capabilities

chatgenerationtools
Serving providers0
Canonical IDibm-granite/granite-4.1-3b

Kimi K2.7 Code Capabilities

agentschatcodingreasoningtoolsvision
Serving providers4
Canonical IDmoonshotai/Kimi-K2.7-Code

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Granite 4.1 3B vs Kimi K2.7 Code FAQs

Is Granite 4.1 3B or Kimi K2.7 Code better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Granite 4.1 3B and Kimi K2.7 Code, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Granite 4.1 3B or Kimi K2.7 Code?+

Only Kimi K2.7 Code has a directly sourced input price: $0.68 per million tokens. Only Kimi K2.7 Code has a directly sourced output price: $3.21 per million tokens.

Which has a larger context window, Granite 4.1 3B or Kimi K2.7 Code?+

Kimi K2.7 Code has the larger sourced context window. Granite 4.1 3B supports 131K and Kimi K2.7 Code supports 262K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Granite 4.1 3B or Kimi K2.7 Code?+

There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.

Can Granite 4.1 3B or Kimi K2.7 Code be self-hosted?+

Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. Granite 4.1 3B is open weight; Kimi K2.7 Code is open weight.

Can Granite 4.1 3B and Kimi K2.7 Code understand images?+

Granite 4.1 3B is not documented with image input; Kimi K2.7 Code is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Granite 4.1 3B or Kimi K2.7 Code?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Granite 4.1 3B is — and Kimi K2.7 Code is —.

Do Granite 4.1 3B and Kimi K2.7 Code support reasoning and tool use?+

Granite 4.1 3B: tool calling. Kimi K2.7 Code: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Granite 4.1 3B or Kimi K2.7 Code?+

Granite 4.1 3B has 0 sourced provider routes; Kimi K2.7 Code has 4, so Kimi K2.7 Code has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, Granite 4.1 3B or Kimi K2.7 Code?+

There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.

Send Feedback