The moat right now is model performance and what that means for how many tokens and additional time you spend.

I say this as a relatively frequent user of Kimi models and generally a big fan. But on not-yet-gamed benchmarks like DeepSWE, Kimi K2.6 is beaten soundly by Claude Sonnet 4.6 ($3 / $15) and even slightly by GPT 5.4 Mini ($0.75 / $4.50).

There's no question Kimi models are very good for a lot of code tasks. They're the best quality open weight model. But to get similar overall outcomes as on Sonnet/Opus, on average you'll spend many more tokens and will have to do more managing of the model. You shouldn't look at price per token, you should look at how much you pay for the entire process.

▲

esperent 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm more interested in how much effort I have to put in, at least while I'm paying in the range of current subscriptions (so ~€100-€200 a month or so). If the prices go up much more than that I'll have to switch to caring more about token efficiency. But at current pricing the bottleneck is my attention, not model efficiency. As such, even a small improvement in model quality - and hence, a decrease in how much attention I have to spend on it - makes a big difference.

▲

Bnjoroge 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I personally dont put any weight to DeepSWE. Other than 5.5 being directionally the best model, it gets the others pretty wrong in my experience. FrontierCode from cognition looks interesting

▲

papersail 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm not sure I would put too much weight on DeepSWE as a benchmark, given that GPT-5.4-mini ended up close to Opus 4.6 there.

▲

DCKing 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Any benchmark is iffy and has weird results, but this is the best we got at the moment. Most people working with Opus and Kimi would likely tell you they're much further apart than the numbers that were quoted for Kimi K2.6, and DeepSWE seems to capture that gap better.

One major thing DeepSWE has going for it is that all other benchmarks (including those quoted by MoonshotAI on this page) don't: the other benchmarks that are completely gamed. The benchmark answers are public and part of each model's training data. This benchmark may still be iffy, but at least it's not gamed.

▲

WarmWash 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Somehow the internet has also forgot that cheating to get ahead in China is basically a norm and expected behavior.

	▲	DCKing 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		American labs also use gamed and cherry-picked benchmarks extensively. Anthropic used them in their Fable announcement and avoided DeepSWE because it doesn't beat GPT-5.5 in that one. Google's numbers for Gemini 3.5 Flash recently did not at all line up with people's subjective experience using these models, and this also happened with Gemini 3.1 Pro before it. Everybody has incentives to manipulate benchmark results to show their models in the best light.