Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Kimi K2 Thinking vs Qwen3 32B

Kimi K2 Thinking leads Qwen3 32B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 22.0 to 7.3, and Qwen3 32B costs 6.3x less per output token ($0.40 vs $2.50 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 12 benchmarks have a result for both.

Kimi K2 ThinkingMoonshot AI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$2.50
12
Qwen3 32BQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
40.8
Output $/M
$0.40
0
vs boards won of 12 shared

Kimi K2 Thinking or Qwen3 32B: which to pick

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

Pick Kimi K2 Thinking for a larger context window (262K against 131K tokens).

Shared results
12
Kimi K2 Thinking only
18
Qwen3 32B only
33
Like-for-like categories
7 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 Thinking not benchmarked, Qwen3 32B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 63.2 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): Kimi K2 Thinking 72.0% against Qwen3 32B 0.0%, 72.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Kimi K2 Thinking $2.50 against Qwen3 32B $0.40 per million output tokens, 6.3x apart.
Context window
Kimi K2 Thinking takes 262K tokens, Qwen3 32B 131K.

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 ThinkingBarsQwen3 32BTies
Coding20
Intelligence20
Agentic work10
Reasoning20
Math20
Knowledge10
General20
All shared boards120
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index20
Coding benchmarks for Kimi K2 Thinking and Qwen3 32B
BenchmarkKimi K2 ThinkingQwen3 32BLeader
Aider polyglotNot measured40.0%Only Qwen3 32B measured
SWE-bench Verified63.4%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 Thinking measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)63.1%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 Thinking measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)60.2%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 Thinking measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)85.3%54.6%Kimi K2 Thinking
SciCodeNot measured36.0%Only Qwen3 32B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)31.1%3.0%Kimi K2 Thinking
Terminal-Bench35.7%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 Thinking measured
WeirdML42.8%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 Thinking measured
ALE-Bench597.5Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 Thinking measured
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1357Only Qwen3 32B measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1366Only Qwen3 32B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Intelligence benchmarks for Kimi K2 Thinking and Qwen3 32B
BenchmarkKimi K2 ThinkingQwen3 32BLeader
AA Intelligence Index22.07.3Kimi K2 Thinking
Epoch Capabilities Index145.8138.4Kimi K2 Thinking
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for Kimi K2 Thinking and Qwen3 32B
BenchmarkKimi K2 ThinkingQwen3 32BLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom93.0%29.8%Kimi K2 Thinking
METR time horizons59.2%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 Thinking measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)Not measured48.7%Only Qwen3 32B measured
BrowseComp-PlusNot measured10.7%Only Qwen3 32B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Reasoning benchmarks for Kimi K2 Thinking and Qwen3 32B
BenchmarkKimi K2 ThinkingQwen3 32BLeader
GPQA Diamond78.5%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 Thinking measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)83.8%66.8%Kimi K2 Thinking
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)23.8%7.4%Kimi K2 Thinking
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured65.7%Only Qwen3 32B measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1334Only Qwen3 32B measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1362Only Qwen3 32B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1350Only Qwen3 32B measured
Kagi LLM BenchmarkNot measured48.7%Only Qwen3 32B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Math benchmarks for Kimi K2 Thinking and Qwen3 32B
BenchmarkKimi K2 ThinkingQwen3 32BLeader
AIME85.4%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 Thinking measured
MGSM (Vals AI)90.2%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 Thinking measured
AA Math Index94.773.0Kimi K2 Thinking
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)94.7%73.0%Kimi K2 Thinking
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured66.9%Only Qwen3 32B measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1399Only Qwen3 32B measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1420Only Qwen3 32B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Knowledge benchmarks for Kimi K2 Thinking and Qwen3 32B
BenchmarkKimi K2 ThinkingQwen3 32BLeader
MMLU Pro81.1%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 Thinking measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)80.2%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 Thinking measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)65.7%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 Thinking measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)60.6%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 Thinking measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)71.7%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 Thinking measured
MedQA (Vals AI)92.6%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 Thinking measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)84.8%79.8%Kimi K2 Thinking
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1372Only Qwen3 32B measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1368Only Qwen3 32B measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1324Only Qwen3 32B measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1318Only Qwen3 32B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Kimi K2 Thinking and Qwen3 32B
BenchmarkKimi K2 ThinkingQwen3 32BLeader
Design Arena: websites1113Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 Thinking measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
General benchmarks for Kimi K2 Thinking and Qwen3 32B
BenchmarkKimi K2 ThinkingQwen3 32BLeader
IFBench68.1%36.3%Kimi K2 Thinking
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)72.0%0.0%Kimi K2 Thinking
DTBenchNot measured67.5%Only Qwen3 32B measured
LMCANot measured17.3%Only Qwen3 32B measured
Fiction.LiveBenchNot measured74.2%Only Qwen3 32B measured
CL-bench17.6%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2 Thinking measured
LMArena TextNot measured1340Only Qwen3 32B measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1305Only Qwen3 32B measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1297Only Qwen3 32B measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1359Only Qwen3 32B measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1317Only Qwen3 32B measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1357Only Qwen3 32B measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1341Only Qwen3 32B measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1311Only Qwen3 32B measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1331Only Qwen3 32B measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1327Only Qwen3 32B measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1298Only Qwen3 32B measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1279Only Qwen3 32B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 28 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Kimi K2 Thinking and Qwen3 32B
BenchmarkKimi K2 ThinkingQwen3 32BLeader
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 Thinking$0.0019Fits in one request
Qwen3 32B$0.0003Fits in one request

Qwen3 32B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Kimi K2 Thinking$0.037Fits in one request
Qwen3 32B$0.0082Fits in one request

Qwen3 32B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Kimi K2 Thinking$0.145Fits in one request
Qwen3 32B$0.032Exceeds the context window

Qwen3 32B 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 Thinking and Qwen3 32B
SpecificationMoonshotAI Kimi K2 ThinkingQwen3 32B
MakerMoonshot AIQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedNovember 6, 2025April 28, 2025
Context window262K131K
Input $/Mtok$0.60$0.14
Output $/Mtok$2.50$0.40
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it10
Cost per solved task$0.61Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Kimi K2 Thinking better than Qwen3 32B for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Kimi K2 Thinking for a larger context window (262K against 131K tokens).

Which is cheaper, Kimi K2 Thinking or Qwen3 32B?

Kimi K2 Thinking costs $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B costs $0.14 and $0.40. Cost per solved task is known for Kimi K2 Thinking only.

Which has the bigger context window, Kimi K2 Thinking or Qwen3 32B?

Kimi K2 Thinking, with 262K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the Kimi K2 Thinking vs Qwen3 32B comparison based on?

12 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Kimi K2 Thinking's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Qwen3 32B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next