// head_to_head

Kimi K2.7 Code vs Hy4 preview

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

Kimi K2.7 Code and Hy4 preview are priced within ~10% of each other.

Hy4 preview 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.

moonshotai

Kimi K2.7 Code

Blended / 1M
$1.35
Context
262K
Released
Jun 12, 2026
Overall score
68.4
reasoningtool callingimage inputprompt caching

tencent

Hy4 preview

Blended / 1M
$1.25
Context
1.0M
Released
Aug 28, 2026
Overall score
Not evaluated
reasoningtool callingprompt caching

Specs and pricing

MetricKimi K2.7 CodeHy4 preview
LiveBench overall

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

68.4
Cost per point

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

$0.0545
Blended price / 1M

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

$1.35$1.25
Input price / 1M$0.706win$0.834
Output price / 1M$3.30$2.50win
Cached input / 1M

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

$0.180$0.042win
Context window262K1.0Mwin
Max output tokens236Kwin64K

Benchmarks by category

An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — Kimi K2.7 Code on top, Hy4 preview below, both out of 100.

Agentic coding
45.7
Coding
74.0
Reasoning
82.8
Mathematics
79.6
Data analysis
62.7
Language
77.9
Instruction following
56.3

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.

WorkloadKimi K2.7 CodeHy4 preview
Support chatbot

1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests

$395.60/mo$343.22/mo
RAG assistant

8K in / 600 out × 100K requests

$552.48/mo$500.46/mo
Coding agent

40K in / 4K out × 20K requests

$534.29/mo$423.76/mo
Document extraction

20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests

$927.39/mo$981.98/mo
Bulk classification

500 in / 20 out × 5M requests

$1,832/mo$1,939/mo
Run these two through the cost calculator

Which should you pick?

You need to fit large documents in one call

Hy4 preview

Wider context window — 1.0M against 262K.

Kimi K2.7 Code vs Hy4 preview FAQ

Which is better, Kimi K2.7 Code or Hy4 preview?

Kimi K2.7 Code and Hy4 preview are priced within ~10% of each other. Hy4 preview 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 Kimi K2.7 Code cheaper than Hy4 preview?

They cost about the same. Both land near $1.35 per million tokens on a 3:1 input:output blend, so price is unlikely to be the deciding factor between them.

Does Kimi K2.7 Code or Hy4 preview have a bigger context window?

Hy4 preview has the larger context window: 262K for Kimi K2.7 Code against 1.0M for Hy4 preview. 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 Kimi K2.7 Code and Hy4 preview support prompt caching?

Both publish a cached-input rate: $0.180 per million for Kimi K2.7 Code and $0.042 for Hy4 preview, against full input rates of $0.706 and $0.834. On a workload with a long stable prefix — a system prompt, a tool schema, a retrieved corpus — that changes the economics more than the headline price does.

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.
  • ScoresLiveBench release 2026-06-25, 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.