Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Kimi K2 0905 vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B leads Kimi K2 0905 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 39.9 to 15.3, and Kimi K2 0905 costs 2.4x less per output token ($2.50 vs $6.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 4 benchmarks have a result for both.

Kimi K2 0905Moonshot AI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$2.50
0
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$6.00
4
vs boards won of 4 shared

Kimi K2 0905 or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Kimi K2 0905 for output tokens 2.4x cheaper ($2.50 vs $6.00 per million) and work measured by AA Intelligence Index or GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Shared results
4
Kimi K2 0905 only
13
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B only
5
Like-for-like categories
3 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Kimi K2 0905 not benchmarked, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B not benchmarked.
Widest category
General, 27.3 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run): Kimi K2 0905 6.4% against Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 42.4%, 36.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Kimi K2 0905 $2.50 against Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B $6.00 per million output tokens, 2.4x apart.
Context window
Kimi K2 0905 takes 262K tokens, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 1.05M.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryKimi K2 0905BarsQwen3.8 2.4T A95BTies
Intelligence01
Reasoning02
General01
All shared boards04
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index6 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for Kimi K2 0905 and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
BenchmarkKimi K2 0905Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BLeader
AA Coding IndexNot measured71.9Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)61.0%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 0905 measured
SciCodeNot measured54.1%Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)23.5%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 0905 measured
WeirdML36.7%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 0905 measured
ALE-Bench267.1Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 0905 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Kimi K2 0905 and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
BenchmarkKimi K2 0905Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BLeader
AA Intelligence Index15.339.9Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Kimi K2 0905 and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
BenchmarkKimi K2 0905Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BLeader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured50.1Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured
τ²-Bench Telecom73.4%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 0905 measured
MCP AtlasNot measured84.5%Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Reasoning benchmarks for Kimi K2 0905 and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
BenchmarkKimi K2 0905Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)76.7%93.5%Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)6.4%42.4%Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Kagi LLM Benchmark52.2%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 0905 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Kimi K2 0905 and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
BenchmarkKimi K2 0905Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BLeader
AA Math Index57.3Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 0905 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)57.3%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 0905 measured
MathArenaNot measured31.6%Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Kimi K2 0905 and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
BenchmarkKimi K2 0905Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)81.9%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 0905 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Kimi K2 0905 and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
BenchmarkKimi K2 0905Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BLeader
Design Arena: websites1088Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 0905 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1098Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 0905 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
General benchmarks for Kimi K2 0905 and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
BenchmarkKimi K2 0905Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BLeader
IFBench41.7%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 0905 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)53.0%80.3%Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Fiction.LiveBench66.7%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 0905 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 45 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Kimi K2 0905 and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
BenchmarkKimi K2 0905Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Kimi K2 0905$0.0019Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B$0.0050Fits in one request

Kimi K2 0905 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Kimi K2 0905$0.037Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B$0.118Fits in one request

Kimi K2 0905 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Kimi K2 0905$0.145Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B$0.460Fits in one request

Kimi K2 0905 costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Kimi K2 0905 and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
SpecificationMoonshotAI Kimi K2 0905Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
MakerMoonshot AIQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 4, 2025August 12, 2026
Context window262K1.05M
Input $/Mtok$0.60$2.00
Output $/Mtok$2.50$6.00
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Kimi K2 0905 better than Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Kimi K2 0905 for output tokens 2.4x cheaper ($2.50 vs $6.00 per million) and work measured by AA Intelligence Index or GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Kimi K2 0905 or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B?

Kimi K2 0905 costs $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B costs $2.00 and $6.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Kimi K2 0905 or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B?

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks is the Kimi K2 0905 vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B comparison based on?

4 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Kimi K2 0905's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next