Kimi K2.7 Code vs MiniMax M3
Which one, when — curated verdict, not a benchmark table
Both models take text, image and video in and return text, and both cover chat, code, reasoning and tools, so the split is price and scale: minimax-m3 runs $0.3 input and $1.2 output against $0.95 and $4 for kimi-k2.7-code, roughly 3.2x cheaper on input and 3.3x on output, with a 1000000-token context and 524288 max output versus 256000 and 32768. Pick minimax-m3 for very long inputs, long generations, or when you want to turn thinking off, since kimi-k2.7-code always reasons. Choose kimi-k2.7-code if you specifically want Moonshot's model within its 256000-token limit.
Pricing
| Kimi K2.7 Code | MiniMax M3 | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $0.95 | $0.3 | 3.2× |
| Output / 1M tokens | $4 | $1.2 | 3.3× |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | $0.19 | $0.06 | 3.2× |
| Cache write | — | no separate charge | — |
Rates from the live catalog at build time; each model page carries the current card.
Where they sit — input price per 1M tokens across all 63 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)
Capabilities
| Kimi K2.7 Code | MiniMax M3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Tool use | yes | yes |
| Thinking control | always on | configurable |
| Prompt caching | implicit (automatic) | implicit (automatic) |
| Cache lifetime | not published | not published |
| Minimum cached prefix | not published | 512 tokens |
Specs
| Kimi K2.7 Code | MiniMax M3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Input modalities | text image video | text image video |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | 2026-06 | 2026-06-01 |
| Context window | 256K | 1M |
| Max output | 33K | 524K |
| Thinking parameter |
|
|
| Accepted values | type
keep
| thinking.type
reasoning_split
|
| Default | thinking on with Preserved Thinking on | adaptive: thinking on, with the model deciding when extra reasoning helps |
Specs are transcribed from each vendor’s documentation; a row a vendor does not publish is left out rather than inferred. Full sources: Kimi K2.7 Code · MiniMax M3
One prompt, both models — measured through the gateway
Kimi K2.7 Code passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning mode causes the model to generate an internal chain-of-thought before producing each answer, and that hidden reasoning text is billed like any other output. Those extra reasoning tokens typically add up to much more than the final response itself, so every API call now costs significantly more than before. Because our overall usage volume did not change, the doubled bill reflects that each query consumes roughly twice as many billable tokens.
out 259 tok (+174 thinking) latency 5.4 s
MiniMax M3 passed · 3 sentences
Reasoning-enabled models deliberately produce extensive internal "chain-of-thought" tokens before answering, often consuming 5–10x more tokens per query than a standard model. Because LLM providers bill per token for both that reasoning trace and the final response, your cost-per-query rises proportionally—and that multiplier is the primary driver of the doubled bill. The right response isn't to disable reasoning, but to route only genuinely complex queries to it while keeping routine traffic on the cheaper standard tier, which typically recovers 60–80% of the cost without sacrificing quality where it matters.
out 665 tok (+548 thinking) latency 5.7 s
Instruction following (exactly three sentences — countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.
Kimi K2.7 Code passed · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 best = max(best, cur) else: cur = 1 return best ``` The bug is that the function counts *transitions* between equal neighbors instead of counting the items themselves, so a single-element list never enters the loop and returns `0` instead of `1`. Likewise, resetting `cur` to `0` on a mismatch forgets the current item that starts a new run, which causes runs that end at the last index to be undercounted. Initializing both `best` and `cur` to `1` and resetting `cur` to `1` fixes both issues.
out 410 tok (+222 thinking) latency 9.4 s
MiniMax M3 passed · 8/8 cases
The bug is in the loop bound: `range(1, len(xs))` iterates from index 1 up to but not including `len(xs) - 1`... wait, actually it goes up to `len(xs) - 1`, so the last index is included. The real problems are two: 1. **Starting `best` and `cur` at 0** and iterating from index 1 means a single-element list (`len(xs) == 1`) never enters the loop, so the function returns `0` instead of `1`. The fix is to either seed `best = cur = 1` when `xs` is non-empty, or include index 0 in the loop logic. 2. **Missing the final run**: the function only updates `best` *inside* the loop when it finds a continuation. If the longest run ends at the very last element, the loop body never gets to compare it after the increment — actually it does, but only if the run is longer than the previous `best`. […]
out 464 tok latency 7.9 s
Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.
Kimi K2.7 Code passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld pending the Q4 close"
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": "withheld pending the Q4 close" } ```
out 721 tok (+663 thinking) latency 13.2 s
MiniMax M3 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null } ```
out 2212 tok (+2161 thinking) latency 23.3 s
Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.
Kimi K2.7 Code passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
We're introducing Prompt Cache for our API Gateway, a new capability that stores prompt responses across multiple AI providers. By caching replies, you reduce redundant calls, lower latency, and cut costs without changing how you build. Teams using several model providers can now reuse identical prompt results instantly, keeping traffic consistent and budgets predictable. Responses are keyed by provider, model, and exact prompt, so you always get the right result. Configure TTL, hit thresholds, and eviction rules from a single dashboard. It fits into your existing routing and requires no code changes. Setup takes minutes and works with your current endpoints. Want to see how much latency and spend you can trim? Check the docs to enable Prompt Cache today.
out 2375 tok (+2235 thinking) latency 38.6 s
MiniMax M3 passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Introducing PromptCache, our new API gateway feature that caches prompts across multiple LLM providers. Developers can store prompt-completion pairs centrally, reducing redundant inference calls and lowering costs without sacrificing quality. How will your workflow change when repeated requests resolve instantly from a shared cache layer? The gateway intercepts outgoing requests, checks for matching prompt fingerprints, and serves previously generated completions when available, falling back to the original provider on misses. Compatible with OpenAI, Anthropic, Cohere, and custom endpoints, PromptCache integrates with existing routing rules and supports TTL, versioning, and per-tenant namespaces. Teams now gain predictable latency, reduced token spend, and improved throughput during traffic spikes today. […]
out 3256 tok (+2892 thinking) latency 21.5 s
Constraint obedience (word budget, banned-word list, the single question), style fingerprint, and length control.
Switch between them with one line
Both ids are in every tab below — the highlighted pair of lines is the only edit. Same endpoint, same key, same request shape.
from openai import OpenAI
client = OpenAI(
base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
api_key="sk-syn-...",
)
resp = client.chat.completions.create(
model="kimi-k2.7-code",
# model="minimax-m3", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)import OpenAI from "openai";
const client = new OpenAI({
baseURL: "https://synthorai.io/v1",
apiKey: "sk-syn-...",
});
const resp = await client.chat.completions.create({
model: "kimi-k2.7-code",
// model: "minimax-m3", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages: [{ role: "user", content: "Summarize this diff" }],
reasoning_effort: "medium",
});
console.log(resp.choices[0].message.content);curl https://synthorai.io/v1/chat/completions \
-H "Authorization: Bearer sk-syn-..." \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"model": "kimi-k2.7-code",
# "model": "minimax-m3", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}],
"reasoning_effort": "medium"
}'package main
import (
"context"
"fmt"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3/option"
)
func main() {
client := openai.NewClient(
option.WithBaseURL("https://synthorai.io/v1"),
option.WithAPIKey("sk-syn-..."),
)
resp, _ := client.Chat.Completions.New(context.TODO(), openai.ChatCompletionNewParams{
Model: "kimi-k2.7-code",
// Model: "minimax-m3", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
Messages: []openai.ChatCompletionMessageParamUnion{
openai.UserMessage("Summarize this diff"),
},
ReasoningEffort: openai.ReasoningEffortMedium,
})
fmt.Println(resp.Choices[0].Message.Content)
}import com.openai.client.OpenAIClient;
import com.openai.client.okhttp.OpenAIOkHttpClient;
import com.openai.models.chat.completions.*;
import com.openai.models.ReasoningEffort;
OpenAIClient client = OpenAIOkHttpClient.builder()
.baseUrl("https://synthorai.io/v1")
.apiKey("sk-syn-...")
.build();
ChatCompletion resp = client.chat().completions().create(
ChatCompletionCreateParams.builder()
.model("kimi-k2.7-code")
// .model("minimax-m3") // uncomment this line, comment the one above
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));FAQ
Which is cheaper, Kimi K2.7 Code or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($0.3 vs $0.95, 3.2× apart). Other rows may point the other way — the table above carries the full card, and real cost depends on your mix.
Can I A/B test Kimi K2.7 Code against MiniMax M3 without two integrations?
Yes. Both are served through the same OpenAI-compatible endpoint with one API key — switching is a one-line model-string change, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.
Do Kimi K2.7 Code and MiniMax M3 support prompt caching?
Yes — both bill cached reads below their input rate, so warm-prefix workloads cost less than the list rates suggest. The exact cache-read rows are in the pricing table above.