Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kimi K2.7-Code: open-source coding model with better token efficiency

huggingface.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 254 posts

Re: Kimi K2.7-Code: open-source coding model with better token efficiency

#51

Post by htrp »

kmike84 wrote: post #39
shreedx wrote: post #10

I would really love to know if anyone has any experience with something like opencode + Kimi K2.6/2.7 now compared to Claude Code. What is better, what is worse, what is the cost comparison. I am currently paying $100 for the 5x Max plan, but Fable is running through the usage limits quite drastically and I cannot really say it's night and day compared to Opus. Also, I use this mostly for my side projects, so the $10…

I do have this experience. I've used Claude Code (with Opus mostly), and then switched to opencode (mostly with Kimi 2.6) for my personal projects; it's based on a couple months of use. Claude Code is better. But Opencode + kimi 2.6 is workable, which is big. For bare code writing, if you know what exactly you want, most popular models are fine (deepseek, kimi, etc), it feels more or less the same as anthropic models…

>At the same time, Opus seems to understand my intent way better than e.g. deepseek. I need to be much more precise with my prompts when using deepseek - it often goes in a wrong direction if I'm lazy. This results in a workflow which feels quite a lot different from Claude Code.

how much of that is Opus injecting prior conversations from memory?

Re: Kimi K2.7-Code: open-source coding model with better token efficiency

#52

Post by rsanek »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #8
343rwerfd wrote: post #4

I think any new model not demonstrably maybe 20-30% over Deepseek v4 capabilities priced over the price per token of Deepseek is almost automatically deprecated as low use model (maybe for Planning).

Is Deepseek just eating cost or are people able to host their open models for comparable costs?

Likely CCP-subsidized

Re: Kimi K2.7-Code: open-source coding model with better token efficiency

#53

Post by DCKing »

papersail wrote: post #42
DCKing wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

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.

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.

Re: Kimi K2.7-Code: open-source coding model with better token efficiency

#54

Post by jdw64 »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #48
jdw64 wrote: post #43

Personally, when I use open code or routers, I feel that beyond a certain level, the models don't make a huge difference to me. Except for expensive and mediocre models like Gemini. In that sense, Chinese models are pretty good. I usually write code in function or method units and then design and assemble them together. GPT series models are more thorough and better, but I'm not sure if the difference is enormous. It…

In my experience, there's little difference between implementing individual functions between frontier models and SotA ~30B param models. Once you have a coherent design (the hard part), you can feed it to a pretty small model and get basically the same quality. They'll not one-shot, but they're faster and cheaper, so it still works out in your favor. Plus you can do it locally...

I have a similar experience. However, when including code review, I think the GPT model is the most impressive

Re: Kimi K2.7-Code: open-source coding model with better token efficiency

#55

Post by solarkraft »

shreedx wrote: post #10

I would really love to know if anyone has any experience with something like opencode + Kimi K2.6/2.7 now compared to Claude Code. What is better, what is worse, what is the cost comparison. I am currently paying $100 for the 5x Max plan, but Fable is running through the usage limits quite drastically and I cannot really say it's night and day compared to Opus. Also, I use this mostly for my side projects, so the $10…

For some reason I never had a good experience with Kimi (via OpenRouter) in OpenCode. It would only take a few turns for it to run off and mess something up. Terrible instruction following I’d say.

I use DeepSeek V4 Pro now, which works pretty well.

Re: Kimi K2.7-Code: open-source coding model with better token efficiency

#56

Post by kitchi »

htrp wrote: post #51
kmike84 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do have this experience. I've used Claude Code (with Opus mostly), and then switched to opencode (mostly with Kimi 2.6) for my personal projects; it's based on a couple months of use. Claude Code is better. But Opencode + kimi 2.6 is workable, which is big. For bare code writing, if you know what exactly you want, most popular models are fine (deepseek, kimi, etc), it feels more or less the same as anthropic models…

>At the same time, Opus seems to understand my intent way better than e.g. deepseek. I need to be much more precise with my prompts when using deepseek - it often goes in a wrong direction if I'm lazy. This results in a workflow which feels quite a lot different from Claude Code. how much of that is Opus injecting prior conversations from memory?

Almost none of it, if you're using Claude Code. Until recently Claude only had the option of retaining memory across conversations for the desktop app.

I almost never use the desktop app, I have maybe 2-3 conversations over the last year that have nothing to do with my job. Opus (and now Fable) genuinely do seem to "understand" what you intend based off what you're explaining a lot better than other models I've tried.

Gemini gets close in some cases, but it falls over in the actual implementation sometimes. I haven't tried Kimi yet but MiMo isn't too shabby either.

Re: Kimi K2.7-Code: open-source coding model with better token efficiency

#57

Post by smoe »

yanis_t wrote: post #2

I was wondering how does Anthropic and likes keep competitive when Opus is ($5 / $25) 5x times more expensive compared to Kimi K2.6 ($0.7 / $3.4) or other Chinese models, while being only marginally better. My theory is that US enterprise just can't send data to Chinese and that's understandable, but is that "the moat"?

I reckon right now the Enterprise concern is more FOMO around the AI wave and how to retrain or replace up to hundreds of thousands of employees. I don't think cost is the main concern right now.

But if AI doesn't lead quickly to vast large scale replacement of workers as promised, I could definitely see the C-suits and their gaggle of consultants starting to ask questions about token pricing.

Re: Kimi K2.7-Code: open-source coding model with better token efficiency

#58

Post by freigeist79 »

nullbio wrote: post #33
yanis_t wrote: post #2

I was wondering how does Anthropic and likes keep competitive when Opus is ($5 / $25) 5x times more expensive compared to Kimi K2.6 ($0.7 / $3.4) or other Chinese models, while being only marginally better. My theory is that US enterprise just can't send data to Chinese and that's understandable, but is that "the moat"?

I think none of them having a defacto and high quality English focused cli is a big part of it. None of the Chinese models I've tried have worked well in opensource cli's. Granted, I've only tried a few, but still...

i use github copilot cli + openrouter + qwen 3.7 max and it's really much better than i expected (used to opus 4.7 at work)

Re: Kimi K2.7-Code: open-source coding model with better token efficiency

#59

Post by giancarlostoro »

htrp wrote: post #49
giancarlostoro wrote: post #40

Reading their modified license terms, it cracks me up, because they've basically remade the MIT to be the MIT + the one clause that the BSD used to have, which didn't care about MAU or revenue, if you used it in a product, they asked you to 'advertise' them basically. Honestly, its a reasonable request.

This is the cursor callout. Don't make us shame you into disclosure

Ah is that what it is? I don't use Cursor, never saw it as being relevant to me, but would not surprise me.

Re: Kimi K2.7-Code: open-source coding model with better token efficiency

#60

Post by miroljub »

jeremyjh wrote: post #24
ramon156 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can only talk about GLM 5.1 which is roughly at sonnet 4 levels imo. It's good, does most tasks well that I throw at it, but will fail at anything congitive/complex. It gets stuck often. It costs ~6$ a month though

This was my experience using GLM 5.1 in Claude Code but it works far better in OpenCode, I’d really like to understand why. I think it’s a bit stronger than Sonnet 4.6. I use the oh-my-openagent planning system and haven’t used vanilla OpenCode enough to know how much that is contributing.

The answer is easy, CC is bug for bug optimized for Anthropic models. They don't even test it with other models, let alone provide support for all small compatibility quirks of different provider implementations.

On the other hand, Opencode, Pi agent and other open source tool offer much better support for all models, including open source.

Post reply on HN