Model comparison
Qwen vs Kimi API
Qwen is the stronger first pick for structured output and extraction in this benchmark set; Kimi remains useful for family-specific behavior and coding comparisons.
Route shortlist
Benchmark comparison
| Model | Total /100 | Extraction | Instructions | Math | Tools | Fully correct | Tokens | Cost (USD) | CPS ($/100 points) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Qwen 3.7 Plusqwen3.7-plus | 92.72 | 99.56 | 100.00 | 72.00 | 99.33 | 52/60 | 122,334 | $0.116596 | $0.125748 |
Kimi K2.6kimi-k2.6 | Not evaluated in V3.2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
BenchLocal V3.2 · Original 27 models: 2 October 2026; three full-suite supplements: 15 October 2026 · 60 tasks per model. Total = mean of the four category scores. The original models retain 45 V3 tasks and 15 revised tool tasks; the three additional model IDs each completed all 60 identical tasks. Near-ceiling scores do not establish general capability; V3 scores are not directly comparable. CPS = Cost per Score; shown as USD per 100 score points: retained execution cost ÷ unrounded total score × 100. Free models are shown at $0. Paid-model costs are historical charges, excluding failed requests and discarded retests.
Decision guide
Recommended route
Start with Qwen 3.7 Plus for structured output; add Kimi K2.6 when testing coding support and Kimi-specific behavior.
Benchmark signal
Qwen 3.7 Plus scored 90 overall in the earlier pre-V3 evaluation, while Kimi K2.6 scored 88. Kimi had strong instruction following but lower HermesAgent score.
API access
GPTokens lets you run both behind the same endpoint, so the comparison can be based on actual prompts rather than setup cost.
Related pages