Roboflow

Kimi K3 vs Qwen3.8 Max

Compare Kimi K3 and Qwen3.8 Max side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Open Prompt, Image Captioning, OCR, and Classification.

Compare Kimi K3 vs Qwen3.8 Max 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.
QwenQwen3.8 Max
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

MoonshotAI

Kimi K3 vs Qwen3.8 Max on Vision Evals

Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Counting, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 82.4% to 46.0%.

Overall, Kimi K3 averages 66.5% (#16 of 24) against 84.0% (#2 of 24) for Qwen3.8 Max.

Qwen3.8 Max is cheaper ($0.0074 vs $0.011 per sample), while Kimi K3 is faster (12.7s vs 18.0s per sample).

Kimi K3Qwen3.8 Max

Kimi K3 vs Qwen3.8 Max Comparison Table

Evals updated August 3, 2026Pricing updated August 5, 2026

PropertyKimi K3Qwen3.8 Max
OrganizationMoonshot AIQwen
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M984K
Parameters2.8T2.4T total, ~95B active
LicenseModified MITApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$3.00$2.00
Output $/1M$15.00$6.00
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%
84.0%
Avg cost / sample$0.011$0.0074
Avg speed / sample12.71s18.02s
By task
Object Detection
51.9%
$0.020
77.1%
$0.013
Counting
46.0%
$0.0046
82.4%
$0.0046
Identification
81.3%
$0.0041
90.6%
$0.0027
OCR
93.0%
$0.0094
92.8%
$0.0056
Data Extraction
84.5%
$0.0046
87.6%
$0.0029
Reasoning (low)
42.4%
$0.0044
73.5%
$0.0047
Reasoning (high)
74.2%
$0.037
80.8%
$0.011

Kimi K3 vs Qwen3.8 Max: 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.

Qwen3.8 Max

Qwen3.8 Max is the flagship tier of Alibaba's Qwen3.8 family, a sparse mixture-of-experts multimodal model with roughly 2.4 trillion total parameters of which about 95 billion activate per token, which keeps serving cost and latency well below what the total parameter count would imply. It builds on the architectural foundation established by Qwen3.5 and accepts text, images, video, and documents as input while producing text output. Reported context handling reaches close to one million tokens, with a maximum generation length of 131,072 tokens, so the model is aimed at long-horizon agentic work such as repository-scale coding, multi-step research, data analysis, and office document workflows.

For vision work the model performs image and video understanding, document and chart interpretation, text recognition inside images, and grounded visual question answering, and Alibaba reports gains concentrated in multimodal and agentic evaluation categories rather than general reasoning. Published figures include 86.6 on Terminal-Bench 2.1, 67.7 on SWE-bench Pro, 93.0 on PaperBench, 82.8 on IFBench, and 92.6 on GPQA Diamond. It is the first model in the Max tier of the Qwen line for which the team states weights will be released publicly, alongside a smaller Qwen3.8 27B checkpoint. No training or safety model card has been published.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.8 Max performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 84.0% (#2 of 24) against 66.5% (#16 of 24) for Kimi K3. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Counting benchmark, Qwen3.8 Max leads with 82.4% against 46.0%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.8 Max is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0074 per sample against $0.011. Kimi K3 is priced at $3.00 per 1M input tokens and $15.00 per 1M output; Qwen3.8 Max is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Kimi K3 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 12.7s per inference against 18.0s. 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.