vakati-tech.ai

// head_to_head

Mistral Large 4 vs Kimi K2 0711

Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.

OpenRouter + LiveBenchAll comparisonsFull leaderboard

Mistral Large 4 and Kimi K2 0711 are priced within ~10% of each other.

Kimi K2 0711 does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.

mistralai

Mistral Large 4

Blended / 1M
$1.05
Context
1.0M
Released
Oct 6, 2026
Overall score
43.9
reasoningtool callingimage inputprompt caching

moonshotai

Kimi K2 0711

Blended / 1M
$1.00
Context
131K
Released
Jul 11, 2025
Overall score
Not evaluated
tool calling

Specs and pricing

MetricMistral Large 4Kimi K2 0711
LiveBench overall

Weighted mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better.

43.9—
Cost per point

Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability.

$0.0162—
Blended price / 1M

3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic.

$1.05$1.00
Input price / 1M$0.700$0.570win
Output price / 1M$2.10$2.30
Cached input / 1M

Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one.

$0.070—
Context window1.0Mwin131K
Max output tokens262Kwin98K

Benchmarks by category

An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — Mistral Large 4 on top, Kimi K2 0711 below, both out of 100.

Long-horizon agentic
8.8
—
Coding
60.0
—
Reasoning
83.9
—
Browser
0.6
—
Data analysis
76.5
—
Research
28.1
—
Documents & design
65.6
—

What each one costs to run

Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.

WorkloadMistral Large 4Kimi K2 0711
Support chatbot

1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests

$290.64/mo$320.80/mo
RAG assistant

8K in / 600 out × 100K requests

$434.00/mo$594.00/mo
Coding agent

40K in / 4K out × 20K requests

$375.20/mo$640.00/mo
Document extraction

20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests

$826.00/mo$742.50/mo
Bulk classification

500 in / 20 out × 5M requests

$1,645/mo$1,655/mo
Run these two through the cost calculator

Which should you pick?

You need to fit large documents in one call

Mistral Large 4

Wider context window — 1.0M against 131K.

Mistral Large 4 vs Kimi K2 0711 FAQ

Which is better, Mistral Large 4 or Kimi K2 0711?

Mistral Large 4 and Kimi K2 0711 are priced within ~10% of each other. Kimi K2 0711 does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.

Is Mistral Large 4 cheaper than Kimi K2 0711?

They cost about the same. Both land near $1.05 per million tokens on a 3:1 input:output blend, so price is unlikely to be the deciding factor between them.

Does Mistral Large 4 or Kimi K2 0711 have a bigger context window?

Mistral Large 4 has the larger context window: 1.0M for Mistral Large 4 against 131K for Kimi K2 0711. Note that a window you can fill is not a window you should fill — retrieval quality usually degrades well before the limit, and you pay for every token you put in it.

Do Mistral Large 4 and Kimi K2 0711 support prompt caching?

Mistral Large 4 publishes a cached-input rate of $0.070 per million tokens against a full input rate of $0.700. The catalogue lists no separate cached rate for Kimi K2 0711, which means the provider does not price it separately here — not that caching is unavailable.

Related comparisons

How these numbers are produced

  • Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
  • Scores — LiveBench release 2026-10-25, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
  • Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
  • “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.

Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.