Qwen3.8 27B vs Kimi K2.6

At a Glance

Compare
Kimi K2.6Moonshot AI
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5#30 of 4654.0 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 36.0–69.4#32 of 4650.5 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 33.6–67.0
CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate#16 of 44$0.072 per LiveBench case#21 of 44$0.095 per LiveBench case
EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5#17 of 3854.8 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 45.8–62.5#24 of 3850.1 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 41.7–58.4
Pricing and Limits
Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$0.20Deepinfra · Sep 22, 2026$0.75Deepinfra · Sep 22, 2026
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$2.50Deepinfra · Sep 22, 2026$3.50Deepinfra · Sep 22, 2026
Context windowMaximum documented tokens262K262K
Model facts checkedAug 28, 2026View model evidence →Aug 28, 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 →
BenchmarkQwen3.8-27BKimi-K2.6
LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader1,439.2799% of row best · rating · qwen3.8-27b; 95% CI [1432.84410050, 1445.69542028]; votes 10697; rank 681,454.92100% of row best · rating · kimi-k2.6; 95% CI [1450.40277919, 1459.43693683]; votes 37502; rank 38
LMArena Vision Arenavision-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · statistical tie1,272.1299% of row best · rating · qwen3.8-27b; 95% CI [1262.21853873, 1282.01179703]; votes 4577; rank 351,280.40100% of row best · rating · kimi-k2.6; 95% CI [1273.38025179, 1287.42397051]; votes 15347; rank 28
LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader78.02100% of row best · percent · qwen3.8-27b · 28,740 output tokens / case74.1895% of row best · percent · kimi-k2.6-thinking · 27,001 output tokens / case
Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above · 1 tie1 benchmark winNo overall winner1 benchmark winNo overall winner

Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.

Side-by-Side Facts

FieldQwen3.8-27BKimi-K2.6
DeveloperQwenMoonshot AI
FamilyQwen3 8 27bKimi K2 6
ModelQwen3.8-27BKimi-K2.6
VersionQwen3.8-27BKimi-K2.6
Lifecycleactiveactive
ReleasedUnknown2026-04-20
Knowledge cutoffUnknownUnknown
Input modalitiesText, ImageText, Image
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window262K262K
Total parameters27.8B1T
Active parametersUnknown32B
Licenseapache-2.0other
Open weightsYesYes
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableYesYes
Provider accessDeepinfra (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard)Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoning, toolschat, generation, reasoning, tools

Qwen3.8 27B Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Serving providers3
Canonical IDQwen/Qwen3.8-27B

Kimi K2.6 Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Serving providers5
Canonical IDmoonshotai/Kimi-K2.6

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Qwen3.8 27B vs Kimi K2.6 FAQs

Is Qwen3.8 27B or Kimi K2.6 better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Qwen3.8 27B and Kimi K2.6, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8 27B or Kimi K2.6?+

Qwen3.8 27B is $0.20 and Kimi K2.6 is $0.75 per million tokens, so Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper on this metric. Qwen3.8 27B is $2.50 and Kimi K2.6 is $3.50 per million tokens, so Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, Qwen3.8 27B or Kimi K2.6?+

Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. Qwen3.8 27B is 262K and Kimi K2.6 is 262K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Qwen3.8 27B or Kimi K2.6?+

There is no overall benchmark winner: The verified common benchmarks do not produce a majority winner.

Can Qwen3.8 27B or Kimi K2.6 be self-hosted?+

Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. Qwen3.8 27B is open weight; Kimi K2.6 is open weight.

Can Qwen3.8 27B and Kimi K2.6 understand images?+

Qwen3.8 27B is documented with image input; Kimi K2.6 is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Qwen3.8 27B or Kimi K2.6?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Qwen3.8 27B is 131K and Kimi K2.6 is —.

Do Qwen3.8 27B and Kimi K2.6 support reasoning and tool use?+

Qwen3.8 27B: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Kimi K2.6: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Qwen3.8 27B or Kimi K2.6?+

Qwen3.8 27B has 3 sourced provider routes; Kimi K2.6 has 5, so Kimi K2.6 has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, Qwen3.8 27B or Kimi K2.6?+

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