Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Fugu Max vs Kimi K2.7 Code Highspeed
Fugu Max comes out ahead, 46 to 40 and 31 on our weighted score.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
31/100- ECI—
- Price$2.00 / $6.00
- Context262K
- Our pick
Sakana AIFugu Max
46/100- ECI—
- Price$2.00 / $6.00
- Context1M
Moonshot AIKimi K2.7 Code Highspeed
40/100- ECI—
- Price$1.90 / $8.00
- Context262K
Fugu Max is our pick
Fugu Max is the better all-round choice, scoring 46/100 against Kimi K2.7 Code Highspeed (40) and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B (31). It leads on context window. 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 priceQwen3.8 2.4T A95B and Fugu MaxQwen3.8 2.4T A95B $3.00 · Fugu Max $3.00 · Kimi K2.7 Code Highspeed $3.42 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextFugu MaxFugu Max 1,000,000 · Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 262,144 · Kimi K2.7 Code Highspeed 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsFugu Max and Kimi K2.7 Code HighspeedQwen3.8 2.4T A95B: Text · Fugu Max: Text, Images, PDFs · Kimi K2.7 Code Highspeed: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingQwen3.8 2.4T A95B and Kimi K2.7 Code HighspeedPublishes downloadable weights (qwen3.8-max)
| Measure | Weight | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Fugu Max | Kimi K2.7 Code Highspeed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 26 | 26 | 23 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 70 | 70 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 60 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 31/100 | 46/100 | 40/100 |
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 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BAlibaba (Qwen) | Fugu MaxSakana AI | Kimi K2.7 Code HighspeedMoonshot AI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $2.00 | $2.00 | $1.90 (best) |
| Output | $6.00 (best) | $6.00 (best) | $8.00 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $3.00 (best) | $3.00 (best) | $3.42 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 23 providers | Median of 9 providers | Median of 12 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens | 128,000 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | Yes | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Openqwen3.8-max | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | — | — | — |
| API providers | 23 (best) | 9 | 12 |
| Released | Aug 12, 2026 | Sep 11, 2026 | Jun 12, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — | Jan 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B$32.00
- Fugu Max$32.00
- Kimi K2.7 Code Highspeed$35.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B, Fugu Max or Kimi K2.7 Code Highspeed?
Fugu Max is the better all-round choice, scoring 46/100 against Kimi K2.7 Code Highspeed (40) and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B (31). It leads on context window. 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, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B, Fugu Max or Kimi K2.7 Code Highspeed?
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is cheaper at $2.00 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (median across 23 API providers). Fugu Max costs $2.00 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (median across 9 API providers); Kimi K2.7 Code Highspeed costs $1.90 input / $8.00 output per million tokens (median across 12 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $3.00 per million tokens for Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B versus $3.00 for Fugu Max (1× as much) and $3.42 for Kimi K2.7 Code Highspeed (1.1× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B has not been scored yet, Fugu Max has not been scored yet and Kimi K2.7 Code Highspeed has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B, Fugu Max and Kimi K2.7 Code Highspeed 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?
Fugu Max has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B and 262,144 for Kimi K2.7 Code Highspeed. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B up to 131,072, Fugu Max up to 128,000, Kimi K2.7 Code Highspeed up to 262,144 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B accepts text; Fugu Max accepts text, images and PDFs; Kimi K2.7 Code Highspeed accepts text, images and video. Fugu Max handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B and Kimi K2.7 Code Highspeed publishes its weights (qwen3.8-max) and can be self-hosted; Fugu Max is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Fugu Max is the newest, released Sep 11, 2026. Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B came out Aug 12, 2026; Kimi K2.7 Code Highspeed came out Jun 12, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Kimi K2.7 Code Highspeed Jan 2025.
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.
