Compare / Qwen3-32B vs Kimi K2 (0711)

Qwen3-32B vs Kimi K2 (0711)

Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 24 results on 4 sources that measured both models.

AlibabaQwen3-32B Released 28 Apr 2025 · $0.14 in · $0.40 out
Moonshot AIKimi K2 (0711) Released 12 Jul 2025 · $0.57 in · $2.30 out
Qwen3-32B wins 52 too close to callKimi K2 (0711) wins 17

Of the 24 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.

Results as of 9 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-09-dd620e778ac5). See also Alibaba vs Moonshot AI, every model from both labs.

Qwen3-32B or Kimi K2 (0711)? The short answer

Pick Kimi K2 (0711) if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 12.7 against 8.6). Pick Qwen3-32B if cost matters more: it costs 4.9 times less per token.

  • Qwen3-32B is cheaper: $0.21 against $1.00 per million tokens, 4.9 times less.
  • Kimi K2 (0711) scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 12.7 against 8.6.
  • Kimi K2 (0711) is newer: released 12 Jul 2025, against 28 Apr 2025 for Qwen3-32B.
  • On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Kimi K2 (0711) does better for agents and tool use, reasoning and knowledge and writing.

Head to head

8.6
Intelligence Index
12.7
$0.21
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$1.00
131,072
Context window, tokens
131,072

Every fact side by side

Qwen3-32BKimi K2 (0711)
Price per million tokens$0.14 in · $0.40 out$0.57 in · $2.30 out
Blended (3 in : 1 out)$0.21$1.00
Cheapest host, blended$0.13 (DeepInfra, FP8)–
Intelligence Index8.612.7
Spring Prompt overall––
Output speed, tokens a second––
Context window131,072 tokens131,072 tokens
Released28 Apr 202512 Jul 2025 (newer)
WeightsOpenOpen
Developer based inChinaChina

Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.

Which is better for what

Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.

Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls 113 of 164 19 of 164
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge 148 of 198 132 of 198
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality 139 of 188 82 of 188
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers 22 of 152 not measured

Every shared result

Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.

MeasureQwen3-32BKimi K2 (0711)
Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results
Overall · TextArena rating, higher is better 195 · 114 of 387 measured 1,347 1,418
Business, management and finance · TextArena rating, higher is better 203 · 127 of 380 measured 1,340 1,409
Creative writing · TextArena rating, higher is better 205 · 131 of 385 measured 1,304 1,371
Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 188 · 147 of 243 measured 8.6thinking reasoning 12.7
GPQA Diamond% of questions, higher is better 167 · 131 of 231 measured 66.8%thinking reasoning 76.6%
Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 168 · 168 of 242 measured 7.4%thinking reasoning 7.4%
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 reported by Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 · 3 results
Overall accuracy · BFCL% correct, higher is better 24 · 9 of 81 measured 48.7%bfcl fc 59.1%bfcl fc
Irrelevance detection · BFCL% correct, higher is better 37 · 17 of 81 measured 82.4%bfcl prompt 87.3%bfcl fc
Memory · BFCL% correct, higher is better 21 · 16 of 81 measured 26.7%bfcl fc 29.0%bfcl fc
UGI Leaderboard reported by UGI Leaderboard · 3 results
Writing score · UGIscore out of 100, higher is better 134 · 71 of 230 measured 33.0no reasoning 52.5
Requested-length error · UGI% off the requested word count, lower is better 99 · 129 of 230 measured 19.0%no reasoning 22.0%
Style adherence · UGIscore from 0 to 1, higher is better 175 · 217 of 230 measured 0.32no reasoning 0.29
Show all 24 results (12 more)
MeasureQwen3-32BKimi K2 (0711)
Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results
Expert prompts · TextArena rating, higher is better 159 · 141 of 338 measured 1,398 1,416
Instruction following · TextArena rating, higher is better 198 · 151 of 387 measured 1,331 1,381
Writing, literature and language · TextArena rating, higher is better 217 · 141 of 386 measured 1,308 1,375
Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 4 results
IFBench% of instructions, higher is better 155 · 127 of 195 measured 36.3%thinking reasoning 41.5%
Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 222 · 146 of 233 measured 0.0%no reasoning 53.0%
Terminal-Bench Hard% of tasks, higher is better 169 · 107 of 190 measured 3.0%thinking reasoning 15.9%
τ²-bench telecom% of tasks, higher is better 135 · 95 of 193 measured 29.8%thinking reasoning 61.1%
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 reported by Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 · 5 results
Multi-turn tasks · BFCL% correct, higher is better 17 · 15 of 81 measured 47.9%bfcl fc 50.6%bfcl fc
Relevance detection · BFCL% correct, higher is better 8 · 49 of 81 measured 93.8%bfcl fc 75.0%bfcl fc
Single-turn calls (curated) · BFCL% correct, higher is better 3 · 55 of 81 measured 90.3%bfcl prompt 81.6%bfcl fc
Single-turn calls (user-contributed) · BFCL% correct, higher is better 3 · 15 of 81 measured 82.0%bfcl fc 78.7%bfcl fc
Web search · BFCL% correct, higher is better 28 · 16 of 81 measured 26.0%bfcl prompt 66.5%bfcl fc

Quick answers

Is Qwen3-32B better than Kimi K2 (0711)?

Pick Kimi K2 (0711) if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 12.7 against 8.6). Pick Qwen3-32B if cost matters more: it costs 4.9 times less per token.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3-32B or Kimi K2 (0711)?

Qwen3-32B is cheaper: $0.21 against $1.00 per million tokens, 4.9 times less.

Which is better for agents and tool use, Qwen3-32B or Kimi K2 (0711)?

Kimi K2 (0711) ranks 19 of 164 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 113 for Qwen3-32B.

Which is better for reasoning and knowledge, Qwen3-32B or Kimi K2 (0711)?

Kimi K2 (0711) ranks 132 of 198 models on sale for hard questions across science, maths and general knowledge, against 148 for Qwen3-32B.

Which is better for writing, Qwen3-32B or Kimi K2 (0711)?

Kimi K2 (0711) ranks 82 of 188 models on sale for what people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality, against 139 for Qwen3-32B.

Run Qwen3-32B and Kimi K2 (0711) on your own prompt

Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.

Try the playgroundTalk to us