Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.
| Metric | Kimi K2.7 Code | Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Input ($/M tokens) | $0.95 | $0.6 |
| Output ($/M tokens) | $4 | $3.6 |
Verdict. Kimi K2.7 Code wins the overall benchmark matchup 7–0 across 7 overlapping categories, but raw benchmark score is only one input to the decision.
Pricing. Both models sit in the mid-tier / budget bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.1× the per-million-token cost, Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning) is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning) makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.
Strengths. Kimi K2.7 Code is strongest on GPQA Diamond (90%), IFBench (63%), Coding Index (60.8). Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning) leads on GPQA Diamond (86%), IFBench (52%), SciCode (41%).
Speed. On throughput, Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning) generates tokens at 64 tok/s versus 39 tok/s — about 39% faster. On time-to-first-token, Kimi K2.7 Code responds in 1178ms vs 1508ms, which matters most for chat-style UIs.
Provider. Kimi and Alibaba sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Kimi tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Alibaba often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.
Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): Kimi K2.7 Code costs $88.50 ($1062/year); Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning) costs $72.00 ($864/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Kimi K2.7 Code ≈ $12.75/run, Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning) ≈ $10.20/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Kimi K2.7 Code ≈ $590/run, Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning) ≈ $480/run. Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning) becomes more attractive at higher volume — the absolute per-token pricing difference compounds when you ship at scale.
Recommendation. If you want one safe default, take Kimi K2.7 Code — it dominates the benchmark table and the latency profile is 1.6× faster. Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning) only makes sense when you specifically need its pricing tier, an existing contract, or a feature difference that is not measured by the benchmarks above.
Head-to-head deltas
Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks
Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning) is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $1.35/M tokens vs $1.71/M for Kimi K2.7 Code.
Kimi K2.7 Code wins 7 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning). See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.
Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning) generates tokens faster at 64 tok/s vs 39 tok/s. Kimi K2.7 Code also has lower time-to-first-token (1.18s vs 1.51s).
Choose based on your priorities: Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning) for lower cost, Kimi K2.7 Code for stronger benchmark performance, and Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning) for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.