Roboflow

Kimi K3 vs Qwen3.5 27B

Compare Kimi K3 and Qwen3.5 27B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Open Prompt, Image Captioning, OCR, and Classification.

Compare Kimi K3 vs Qwen3.5 27B live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
MoonshotAIKimi K3
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.5 27B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

MoonshotAI

Kimi K3 vs Qwen3.5 27B on Vision Evals

Kimi K3 scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Kimi K3 leads 42.4% to 31.8%.

Overall, Kimi K3 averages 66.5% (#17 of 25) against 64.3% (#22 of 25) for Qwen3.5 27B.

Qwen3.5 27B is both cheaper ($0.0007 vs $0.011 per sample) and faster (7.4s vs 12.7s per sample).

Kimi K3Qwen3.5 27B

Kimi K3 vs Qwen3.5 27B Comparison Table

Evals updated August 6, 2026Pricing updated August 11, 2026

PropertyKimi K3Qwen3.5 27B
OrganizationMoonshot AIQwen
Categoryopenopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Feb 2026
Context Window1.0M262K
Parameters2.8T27B
LicenseModified MITApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$3.00$0.195
Output $/1M$15.00$1.56
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
66.5%
64.3%
Avg cost / sample$0.011$0.0007
Avg speed / sample12.71s7.38s
By task
Object Detection
51.9%
$0.020
58.8%
$0.0013
Counting
46.0%
$0.0046
54.0%
$0.0002
Identification
81.3%
$0.0041
78.1%
$0.0002
OCR
93.0%
$0.0094
84.5%
$0.0009
Data Extraction
84.5%
$0.0046
78.3%
$0.0002
Reasoning (low)
42.4%
$0.0044
31.8%
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
74.2%
$0.037
61.6%
$0.0065

Kimi K3 vs Qwen3.5 27B: Overview

Kimi K3

Kimi K3 is a sparse Mixture-of-Experts large language model developed by Moonshot AI, with 2.8 trillion total parameters and a 1-million-token context window. The model activates 16 out of 896 experts per token using the Stable LatentMoE framework, and is built on two architectural innovations: Kimi Delta Attention (KDA), a hybrid linear attention mechanism that enables up to 6.3x faster decoding in long-context settings, and Attention Residuals (AttnRes), which selectively retrieves representations across model depth and delivers roughly 25% higher training efficiency. Together with refined training and data recipes, these structural advances yield approximately 2.5x better overall scaling efficiency compared to its predecessor Kimi K2. The model applies quantization-aware training from the supervised fine-tuning stage onward, using MXFP4 weights with MXFP8 activations for hardware compatibility. Thinking mode is always enabled at launch, with reasoning effort configurable via the reasoning_effort field.

Kimi K3 supports native visual understanding alongside text, accepting image inputs for tasks that combine software engineering and visual reasoning. It targets long-horizon coding, knowledge work, and agentic workflows, and ships in two variants: K3 Max for general chat and agent tasks, and K3 Swarm Max for large-scale parallel processing across many coordinated sub-agents. The model is compatible with the OpenAI SDK via an OpenAI-compatible API. Full model weights are scheduled for release by July 27, 2026 under a Modified MIT license, following the open-weight pattern established by the Kimi K2 model family. A technical report with full architecture, training, and evaluation details is expected to accompany the weights release.

Qwen3.5 27B

Qwen3.5-27B is a multimodal dense hybrid model developed by Alibaba Cloud’s Qwen team and released in February 2026 as a high-precision entry in the Qwen3.5 "Medium" series. Unlike its Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) siblings, the 27B model utilizes a dense architecture combining Gated Delta Networks with a feed-forward structure, activating its full parameter suite for every inference to maximize reliability. This design provides the highest instruction-following and coding accuracy in its class, with a notable IFEval score of 95.0. The model features a native 262K-token context window, extensible to 1M tokens via YaRN (RoPE scaling), and is released under the Apache-2.0 license.

Optimized for agentic workflows, Qwen3.5-27B employs an early-fusion architecture that treats visual and textual data as a unified stream for deep cross-modal reasoning. This unified approach allows the model to excel in technical analysis and software engineering, matching GPT-5-mini with a 72.4% score on SWE-bench Verified. While the larger MoE variants in the family lead in raw knowledge benchmarks, the 27B model offers a stable and high-density alternative for structured data extraction and spatial perception, contributing to the Qwen3.5 family’s generational leap in OCR accuracy over the previous Qwen3-VL series.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Kimi K3 performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 66.5% (#17 of 25) against 64.3% (#22 of 25) for Qwen3.5 27B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Kimi K3 leads with 42.4% against 31.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0007 per sample against $0.011. Kimi K3 is priced at $3.00 per 1M input tokens and $15.00 per 1M output; Qwen3.5 27B is priced at $0.20 per 1M input tokens and $1.56 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Qwen3.5 27B is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.4s per inference against 12.7s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for object detection and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.