Backend comparison

Qwen 3.8 vs Kimi K3

Compare Qwen 3.8 and Kimi K3 using each model’s highest published backend score, with its recorded effort and evaluation date.

Backend & testing

Kimi K3 / high leads these published backend results by 6 points. Kimi K3 / high completed 9m 52s sooner. Reference costs are available for both configurations.

Compare these configurations Read the evaluation method

Published backend evidence

Published: Oct 27, 2026, 12:22 AM UTC
Question pack: coding-fast-v4.12
Tested: 2 measured configurations
Batch: pricing-558102e552269389e09ab11477f8c63d3aedee5bab43565c55e4168c61b36cf4

This is a publication snapshot of retained results. Evaluations may have completed on different dates; these scores describe the backend axis, not the three-axis overall score.

Published backend results

Measure	Qwen 3.8 / default	Kimi K3 / high
Backend configuration rank	#64	#46
Backend score	64/100	70/100
Backend tested	Sep 9, 2026, 09:53 PM UTC	Sep 9, 2026, 10:01 PM UTC
Elapsed	47m 48s	37m 56s
Reference cost	$1.07	$0.89
Route	Custom endpoint	Custom endpoint
Black-box Regression Audit	12/20	16/20
Retry Planner Counterexamples	17/20	15/20
CI Adversarial Audit	8/20	14/20
Transaction Regression Design	14/20	12/20
Cache Propagation Certificate	13/20	13/20

How to choose from these results

Does the measured quality difference remain useful after you account for route reliability, elapsed time, and your own task profile?

Start with the backend score and question profile. Use elapsed time only after both configurations clear your quality floor, and leave cost undecided when either side is not covered.