Which is better: Qwen3.8 27B or Kimi K2.7?

Verdict: Qwen3.8 27B ranks higher (#41 vs #49) and wins 2 of 3 shared benchmarks; Qwen3.8 27B costs less ($0.45/$3.20 vs $0.95/$4.00 per 1M tokens). AskClash compares Qwen3.8 27B and Kimi K2.7 side by side across SWE-bench, GPQA, HLE, Terminal-Bench, coding agent scores, token pricing, AskClash ACB, and context window so you can see which model wins on each benchmark.

How do Qwen3.8 27B and Kimi K2.7 compare on coding benchmarks?

The comparison table shows SWE-bench, SWE-Pro, SWE-Atlas, Terminal-Bench, DeepSWE, and coding agent index scores for both Qwen3.8 27B and Kimi K2.7 when publicly disclosed.

LLM Comparison

Qwen3.8 27B vs Kimi K2.7: benchmark scores, pricing & comparison.

Side-by-side Qwen3.8 27B vs Kimi K2.7 comparison across SWE-bench, GPQA, HLE, Terminal-Bench, coding agent scores, token pricing, context window, and AskClash RWT. Green marks the winner on each benchmark.

Verdict: Qwen3.8 27B ranks higher (#41 vs #49) and wins 2 of 3 shared benchmarks; Qwen3.8 27B costs less ($0.45/$3.20 vs $0.95/$4.00 per 1M tokens).

Open live leaderboard Qwen3.8 27B model page Kimi K2.7 model page

Rank #41 vs #49AskClash overall scores 40.8 vs 29.7.

Pricing $0.45/$3.20 vs $0.95/$4.00Input and output token prices per 1M tokens when published.

Open Weight vs Open WeightAlibaba vs Moonshot AI.

Qwen3.8 27B vs Kimi K2.7 benchmark comparison

Green cells highlight the winning model for each metric. Scores are cached from the AskClash LLM leaderboard snapshot.

Metric	Qwen3.8 27B	Kimi K2.7
Overall Score	40.8	29.7
Leaderboard Rank	#41	#49
ACB	56.4	43.0
AA Intelligence Index	20.1	26.3
AutomationBench-AA	48.2	—
RWT	—	7.5
HLE	30.8	—
GPQA	89.2	—
IFEval	79.5	—
SWE-Pro	61.7	—
DeepSWE	42.2	30.5
GDPval-AA	1426.2	—
OSWorld	84.3	—
MCP Atlas	—	76.0
CharXiv	90.2	—
MMMU-Pro	76.3	—
Input Price (per 1M tokens)	$0.45	$0.95
Output Price (per 1M tokens)	$3.20	$4.00
Context Window	262K	256K
Benchmarks Published	11	4

Qwen3.8 27B vs Kimi K2.7 head-to-head charts

Qwen3.8 27B leads 2 and Kimi K2.7 leads 1 of 3 shared benchmarks. Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper on a defined 1M-input / 200K-output workload. Charts show only benchmarks both models publish.

Qwen3.8 27BKimi K2.7

Overall

40.8Qwen3.8 27B

29.7Kimi K2.7

ACB

56.4Qwen3.8 27B

43.0Kimi K2.7

AA Intelligence Index

20.1Qwen3.8 27B

26.3Kimi K2.7

DeepSWE

42.2Qwen3.8 27B

30.5Kimi K2.7

Qwen3.8 27B

Input$0.45

Output$3.20

Workload$1.09

Context262K

Kimi K2.7

Input$0.95

Output$4.00

Workload$1.75

Context256K

Workload = published cost of 1M input + 200K output tokens. Open the live leaderboard for interactive compare charts.

More Qwen3.8 27B and Kimi K2.7 comparisons

Explore how Qwen3.8 27B and Kimi K2.7 stack up against other top-ranked LLMs.

Claude Fable 5.2 vs Qwen3.8 27B Claude Fable 5.2 vs Kimi K2.7 Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 27B Claude Opus 5.5 vs Kimi K2.7 Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 27B Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Kimi K2.7 Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.8 27B Claude Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K2.7 Gemini 4 Carbon vs Qwen3.8 27B Gemini 4 Carbon vs Kimi K2.7

How to read this comparison

Benchmark scores

Higher is better for all benchmark scores (SWE-bench, GPQA, HLE, Terminal-Bench, etc.). Green marks the model with the higher score.

Token pricing

Lower is better for input and output prices. Green marks the cheaper model per 1M tokens.

Coverage matters

Models with fewer disclosed benchmark cells may have inflated percentile scores. Check the benchmark cell count for context.

This comparison page is generated from the AskClash LLM leaderboard cache. Open the live leaderboard for real-time scores and interactive filtering.