Roboflow

Kimi K3 vs Qwen3.7 Flash

Compare Kimi K3 and Qwen3.7 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Open Prompt, Image Captioning, OCR, and Classification.

Compare Kimi K3 vs Qwen3.7 Flash 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.
QwenQwen3.7 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

MoonshotAI

Kimi K3 vs Qwen3.7 Flash on Vision Evals

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

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Kimi K3 leads 51.9% to 42.8%.

Overall, Kimi K3 averages 66.5% (#17 of 25) against 61.7% (#24 of 25) for Qwen3.7 Flash.

Qwen3.7 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0001 vs $0.011 per sample) and faster (6.3s vs 12.7s per sample).

Kimi K3Qwen3.7 Flash

Kimi K3 vs Qwen3.7 Flash Comparison Table

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

PropertyKimi K3Qwen3.7 Flash
OrganizationMoonshot AIQwen
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Jul 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters2.8T
LicenseModified MITProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$3.00$0.030
Output $/1M$15.00$0.130
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%
61.7%
Avg cost / sample$0.011$0.0001
Avg speed / sample12.71s6.32s
By task
Object Detection
51.9%
$0.020
42.8%
$0.0001
Counting
46.0%
$0.0046
46.0%
<$0.0001
Identification
81.3%
$0.0041
84.4%
<$0.0001
OCR
93.0%
$0.0094
84.1%
$0.0001
Data Extraction
84.5%
$0.0046
78.3%
<$0.0001
Reasoning (low)
42.4%
$0.0044
34.4%
<$0.0001
Reasoning (high)
74.2%
$0.037
60.9%
$0.0005

Kimi K3 vs Qwen3.7 Flash: 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.

Qwen3.7 Flash

Qwen3.7 Flash is the low-latency, cost-oriented tier of Alibaba's Qwen3.7 series, a vision-language reasoning model that accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text. It is built as a hybrid thinking model: like the rest of the Qwen3.7, Qwen3.6, and Qwen3.5 families served through Alibaba Cloud Model Studio, it can either emit an explicit reasoning trace before answering or respond directly, with thinking behavior controlled by an enable_thinking switch that defaults to on for the Qwen3.7 generation. The model exposes a context window of roughly one million tokens and a maximum generation length of 65,536 tokens, which allows long multi-image sequences, long documents, and extended agent trajectories to be held in a single request.

Functionally, Qwen3.7 Flash targets multimodal agent workloads rather than pure chat. Reported strengths include object recognition, spatial understanding, and perception of real-world scenes, alongside visual coding, search, and computer-use style interaction where the model reads screen content and reasons over interface state. Weights are not published; the model is a proprietary endpoint positioned below Qwen3.7 Plus and Qwen3.7 Max in the same series, and it supports function calling and tool use for agentic pipelines.

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 61.7% (#24 of 25) for Qwen3.7 Flash. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark, Kimi K3 leads with 51.9% against 42.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0001 per sample against $0.011. Kimi K3 is priced at $3.00 per 1M input tokens and $15.00 per 1M output; Qwen3.7 Flash is priced at $0.03 per 1M input tokens and $0.13 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Qwen3.7 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.3s 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.