Noometry

Model comparison

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo vs Qwen3.8 27B

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo and Qwen3.8 27B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (45.8 vs 46.0), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo Moonshot AI

45.8

Rank #70 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

46.0

Rank #68 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 6 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 50.5 to 38.4.

Side by side

Kimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.8 27B
ProviderMoonshot AIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index45.846.0
Released2025-11-062026-08-14
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—33K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.99
Output $ / M tokens—$1.49
Results tracked2131

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 38.4 (#178), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.8 27B
LMArena WebDev13221593
LMArena Coding14541482
SciCode—46.6%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.8 27B
APEX-Agents—47.5%

Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 32.5 (#75), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts14281460
ARC-AGI-2—42.4%
NYT Connections (extended)—54.5%
ARC-AGI-1—87.5%
CritPt—5.4%
Chess Puzzles20%—
DTBench—88%
LMCA—41.4%
Surface Evolver Bench—45%
Epoch Capabilities Index—149.38

Math Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 47.4 (#68), Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Math14291456
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202583.1%—
ProofBench—16%

Knowledge Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 50.9 (#69), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Expert14391482
GPQA Diamond84.2%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision—1271

Multilingual Qwen3.8 27B leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 51.4 (#109), Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Non-English13981430
LMArena Chinese14561504
LMArena French14251465
LMArena German13901438
LMArena Japanese13571384
LMArena Korean13301393
LMArena Russian13911415
LMArena Spanish14061448

Instruction Following Qwen3.8 27B leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 74.0 (#109), Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Instruction Following14031439

Long Context Qwen3.8 27B leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 43.2 (#102), Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Longer Query14151450

Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 27B leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 60.0 (#104), Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text14151441
LMArena Creative Writing13741384
LMArena Multi-Turn14141441
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1671

Frequently asked questions

Is Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo and Qwen3.8 27B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (45.8 vs 46.0), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Is Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 38.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo and Qwen3.8 27B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper