Apertus 70B vs MiMo-V2-Pro vs Kimi K2 Instruct 0905
MiMo-V2-Pro comes out ahead, 42 to 38 and 32 on our weighted score, though Kimi K2 Instruct 0905 is 28% cheaper per token.
Swiss AI
Apertus 70B
32/100- ECI—
- Price$0.82 / $2.42
- Context66K
- Our pick
XiaomiMiMo-V2-Pro
42/100- ECI—
- Price$1.00 / $3.00
- Context1.05M
Moonshot AIKimi K2 Instruct 0905
38/100- ECI—
- Price$0.60 / $2.50
- Context262K
MiMo-V2-Pro is our pick
MiMo-V2-Pro is the better all-round choice, scoring 42/100 against Kimi K2 Instruct 0905 (38) and Apertus 70B (32). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Kimi K2 Instruct 0905 wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceKimi K2 Instruct 0905Kimi K2 Instruct 0905 $1.07 · Apertus 70B $1.22 · MiMo-V2-Pro $1.50 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMiMo-V2-ProMiMo-V2-Pro 1,048,576 · Kimi K2 Instruct 0905 262,144 · Apertus 70B 65,536 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsApertus 70B: Text · MiMo-V2-Pro: Text · Kimi K2 Instruct 0905: Text
- Self-hostingApertus 70B and Kimi K2 Instruct 0905Publishes downloadable weights (Apache-2.0 and Modified MIT)
| Measure | Weight | Apertus 70B | MiMo-V2-Pro | Kimi K2 Instruct 0905 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 44 | 40 | 46 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 35 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 12 | 61 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 32/100 | 42/100 | 38/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Apertus 70BSwiss AI | MiMo-V2-ProXiaomi | Kimi K2 Instruct 0905Moonshot AI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.82 | $1.00 | $0.60 (best) |
| Output | $2.42 (best) | $3.00 | $2.50 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.22 | $1.50 | $1.07 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 3 providers | Median of 1 providers | Median of 12 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 65,536 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) | 98,304 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | OpenApache-2.0 | Proprietary | OpenModified MIT |
| API model ID | — | — | — |
| API providers | 3 | 2 | 13 (best) |
| Released | Sep 2, 2025 | Mar 18, 2026 | Sep 5, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Sep 2025 | Dec 2024 | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Apertus 70B$13.04
- MiMo-V2-Pro$16.00
- Kimi K2 Instruct 0905$11.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Apertus 70B, MiMo-V2-Pro or Kimi K2 Instruct 0905?
MiMo-V2-Pro is the better all-round choice, scoring 42/100 against Kimi K2 Instruct 0905 (38) and Apertus 70B (32). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Kimi K2 Instruct 0905 wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Apertus 70B, MiMo-V2-Pro or Kimi K2 Instruct 0905?
Kimi K2 Instruct 0905 is cheaper at $0.60 input / $2.50 output per million tokens (median across 12 API providers). Apertus 70B costs $0.82 input / $2.42 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers); MiMo-V2-Pro costs $1.00 input / $3.00 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $1.07 per million tokens for Kimi K2 Instruct 0905 versus $1.22 for Apertus 70B (1.1× as much) and $1.50 for MiMo-V2-Pro (1.4× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Apertus 70B has not been scored yet, MiMo-V2-Pro has not been scored yet and Kimi K2 Instruct 0905 has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Apertus 70B, MiMo-V2-Pro and Kimi K2 Instruct 0905 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2-Pro has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 262,144 for Kimi K2 Instruct 0905 and 65,536 for Apertus 70B. Maximum output per response: Apertus 70B up to 8,192, MiMo-V2-Pro up to 131,072, Kimi K2 Instruct 0905 up to 98,304 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Apertus 70B accepts text; MiMo-V2-Pro accepts text; Kimi K2 Instruct 0905 accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Apertus 70B and Kimi K2 Instruct 0905 publishes its weights (Apache-2.0 and Modified MIT) and can be self-hosted; MiMo-V2-Pro is proprietary.
Which is newer?
MiMo-V2-Pro is the newest, released Mar 18, 2026. Kimi K2 Instruct 0905 came out Sep 5, 2025; Apertus 70B came out Sep 2, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Apertus 70B Sep 2025, MiMo-V2-Pro Dec 2024.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.
