Moonshot AI (Kimi)Kimi K2.7 CodeVSOpenAIGPT-5.5
Our Take
We recommend Kimi K2.7 Code for a 6.6x API cost saving at identical performance levels. While both models deliver similar intelligence, Kimi K2.7 Code is the optimal choice for high-volume pipelines. Choose Kimi K2.7 Code for budget efficiency without sacrificing quality.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Performance Match: Both models perform almost identically, with an average score gap of just 1.8% across reasoning and coding benchmarks.
Coding Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the SWE-bench Pro benchmark. Kimi K2.7 Code scored 58.6%, while GPT-5.5 scored 58.6%.
Reasoning Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. Kimi K2.7 Code scored 90%, while GPT-5.5 scored 93.6%.
Cost Efficiency: Kimi K2.7 Code pricing ($0.95/M input, $4/M output) is 6.6x cheaper than GPT-5.5 ($5/M input, $30/M output).
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
58.6%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
90%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)6.6x cheaper
$1.71Input: $0.95 | Output: $4.00Context Window
262.14k tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
58.6%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+3.6%)
93.6%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$11.25Input: $5.00 | Output: $30.00Context WindowLarger
1.05M tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Kimi K2.7 Code vs GPT-5.5
Kimi K2.7 Code is cheaper than GPT-5.5. Kimi K2.7 Code has a blended cost of $1.71/1M tokens, which is about 6.6x cheaper than GPT-5.5 at $11.25/1M tokens.
Both Kimi K2.7 Code and GPT-5.5 score identically at 58.6% on swe-bench-pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning).
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Kimi K2.7 Code and GPT-5.5.
Do you want to find a model for your constraints?
Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.