Kimi K2.7 Code
Moonshot AI · Open Weight · rank 34 · bench-align-v5
Canonical idkimi-k2-7-code
Access typeOpen Weight
Blended $/1M$1.7175% input / 25% output
Capability shape
Seven axes from the ranking source. A missing axis is drawn as a gap.
Runtime service evidence
Measured values with the date they were observed. Nothing is inferred from a sibling model or a provider claim.
Time to first token: latency to the first answer chunk (Artificial Analysis, via BenchLM). Reasoning models include thinking time, so values can run to tens or hundreds of seconds.
Evidence key: Observed
| Measurement | Value | Observed | Last good | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time to first token | 48.89 s | 2026-09-17 | 2026-09-17 | |
| Throughput | 48 tok/s | 2026-09-17 | 2026-09-17 |
Regional or per-endpoint measurements appear only when the API supplies them; none are modelled here.
Endpoint and price matrix
Every published price component, including cache reads and writes.
| Component | USD | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $0.95 | |
| Output / 1M tokens | $4.00 | |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | Unavailable | |
| Cache write / 1M tokens | Unavailable | |
| Blended / 1M (75% input / 25% output) | $1.71 |
Self-hosted listingMoonshot's Kimi API platform lists kimi-k2.7-code at $0.95 cache-miss input / $4.00 output per million tokens, with cache-hit input priced at $0.19 per million tokens.The rates above are a hosted price matched from another provider, not a first-party list price.
Workload-aware monthly cost example
10 conversations per day × 8 messages × 22 active days, 1200 input and 400 output tokens per message, no cache. This uses the same calculator as the cost simulator, so an unavailable applicable rate makes the example unavailable too.
Benchmark record
23 matched benchmark rows with their published value, unit, and provenance.
Knowledge
| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index | 26.3 | Cross-benchmark intelligence index | Display-only external reference | Artificial Analysis |
| AA-GPQA Diamond Artificial Analysis GPQA Diamond | 89.6 | Graduate-level science questions | Graduate-level science reasoning | Artificial Analysis GPQA Diamond Benchmark Leaderboard |
| AA-HLE Artificial Analysis Humanity's Last Exam | 35.0 | Expert-level questions | Frontier expert reasoning | Artificial Analysis Humanity's Last Exam Benchmark Leaderboard |
| AA-Omniscience Index Artificial Analysis Omniscience Index | -10.2 | Knowledge questions | Broad factual knowledge | AA-Omniscience: Knowledge and Hallucination Benchmark |
| AA-Omniscience Accuracy Artificial Analysis Omniscience Accuracy | 39.6 | Knowledge questions | Broad knowledge | Artificial Analysis model benchmarks |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate Artificial Analysis Omniscience Hallucination Rate | 82.4 | Knowledge questions | Factuality | Artificial Analysis model benchmarks |
Coding
| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OpenHarmony Bench OpenHarmony Bench v1.0 | 52.1 | 153 app-development and bug-fix tasks | End-to-end OpenHarmony application development | OpenHarmony Bench: Evaluating LLMs and Coding Agents on OpenHarmony App Development |
| ProgramBench ProgramBench: Can Language Models Rebuild Programs From Scratch? | 53.6 | 200 program reconstruction tasks | Full-repository software architecture | ProgramBench: Can Language Models Rebuild Programs From Scratch? |
| Kimi Code Bench v2 Kimi Code Bench v2 | 62.0 | Realistic coding-agent tasks | Production software engineering | Kimi K2.7 Code |
| MLS-Bench Lite MLS-Bench Lite | 35.1 | 30 machine-learning research tasks | ML research and systems engineering | MLS-Bench |
| AA Coding Index Artificial Analysis Coding Index | 60.8 | Cross-benchmark coding index | Display-only external reference | Artificial Analysis model leaderboards |
| AA-SciCode Artificial Analysis SciCode | 47.8 | Scientific coding subproblems | Scientific programming | Artificial Analysis SciCode Benchmark Leaderboard |
Reasoning
| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AA-LCR Artificial Analysis Long Context Reasoning | 79.3 | Long-context reasoning tasks | Long-context reasoning | Artificial Analysis model benchmarks |
| CritPt Critical Physics Tasks | 10.0 | Research-level physics questions | Research-level physics reasoning | CritPt Benchmark Leaderboard |
Instruction Following
| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBench Artificial Analysis IFBench | 63.1 | Verifiable instruction constraints | Instruction precision | Artificial Analysis IFBench Benchmark Leaderboard |
Agentic
| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GDPval-AA GDPval-AA | 1114 | Agentic real-world work tasks | Professional agentic workflows | DeepSeek-V4 Technical Report |
| GDPval-AA GDPval-AA normalized | 30.7 | Economically valuable tasks | Professional agentic workflows | Artificial Analysis model benchmarks |
| AA Agentic Index Artificial Analysis Agentic Index | 22.5 | Cross-benchmark agentic index | Display-only external reference | Artificial Analysis model leaderboards |
| MCP Atlas MCP Atlas | 76 | Tool-integrated agent tasks | Advanced tool use | Introducing GPT-5.4 mini and nano |
| Kimi Claw 24/7 Kimi Claw 24/7 Bench | 46.9 | 17 professional scenarios, 610 evaluation points | Long-horizon agentic work | Kimi K2.7 Code |
| MCP Mark Verified MCPMark-Verified | 81.1 | MCP tool-use tasks across five server environments | Advanced tool use | MCPMark |
| τ²-bench results τ²-Bench Tool-Agent-User Evaluation | 90.1 | Airline, retail, and telecom customer-service task sets | Dual-control customer-service workflows | τ²-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environment |
Multimodal & Grounded
| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena Website Design Arena Website Elo | 1280 | Website generation comparisons | Design and website generation | OpenRouter Grok 4.3 benchmarks |
Lifecycle and limitations log
Lifecycle events the source associates with this model, plus what this profile does not claim.
No lifecycle event references this model.
That is not evidence the model has no lifecycle plan — only that this source published none.
What this profile does not claimValues are reproduced exactly as their sources published them, in the units those sources declared; none are converted, interpolated, or averaged across providers. Any field marked unavailable was attempted and not returned — the attempt timestamp is in each badge. Last attempted fetch for this model’s score: 2026-09-17 17:17 UTC.