LLM Reference

Kimi K2.7-Code vs North Mini Code 1.0

Kimi K2.7-Code (2026) and North Mini Code 1.0 (2026) are agentic coding models from Moonshot AI and Cohere. Kimi K2.7-Code ships a 262k-token context window, while North Mini Code 1.0 ships a 256k-token context window. This comparison covers specs, pricing, API access, capabilities, benchmarks, input and output token costs, and production fit for coding and agent workloads. It focuses on practical selection signals rather than broad model-family marketing.

Kimi K2.7-Code is safer overall; choose North Mini Code 1.0 when coding workflow support matters.

Decision scorecard

Local evidence first
SignalKimi K2.7-CodeNorth Mini Code 1.0
Best forcustom coding agents, code generation, and tool loopscustom coding agents, code generation, and tool loops
Decision fitCoding, RAG, and AgentsCoding, RAG, and Agents
Context window262k256k
Cheapest output$4/1M tokens-
Provider routes1 tracked1 tracked
Shared benchmarks0 shared0 shared

Decision tradeoffs

Choose Kimi K2.7-Code when...
  • Kimi K2.7-Code has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
  • Kimi K2.7-Code uniquely exposes Vision and Multimodal in local model data.
  • Local decision data tags Kimi K2.7-Code for Coding, RAG, and Agents.
Choose North Mini Code 1.0 when...
  • Local decision data tags North Mini Code 1.0 for Coding, RAG, and Agents.

Monthly cost at traffic

Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.

Kimi K2.7-Code

$1,760

Cheapest tracked route/tier: Moonshot AI Kimi

North Mini Code 1.0

Unavailable

No complete token price in local provider data

Cost delta unavailable until both models have sourced input and output token prices.

Switch friction

Kimi K2.7-Code -> North Mini Code 1.0
  • No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Kimi K2.7-Code and North Mini Code 1.0; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
  • Check replacement coverage for Vision and Multimodal before moving production traffic.
North Mini Code 1.0 -> Kimi K2.7-Code
  • No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for North Mini Code 1.0 and Kimi K2.7-Code; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
  • Kimi K2.7-Code adds Vision and Multimodal in local capability data.

Specs

Specification
Released2026-06-122026-06-09
Context window262k256k
Parameters1T30B (MoE, 3B active)
ArchitectureMixture of ExpertsMixture of Experts
LicenseMITOSI-approvedApache 2.0OSI-approved
OpennessOpen sourceOpen source
Commercial useCommercial use: permittedCommercial use: permitted
Knowledge cutoff--

Pricing and availability

Pricing attributeKimi K2.7-CodeNorth Mini Code 1.0
Input price$0.95/1M tokens-
Output price$4/1M tokens-
Providers

Capabilities

CapabilityKimi K2.7-CodeNorth Mini Code 1.0
VisionYesNo
MultimodalYesNo
ReasoningYesYes
Function callingYesYes
Tool useYesYes
Structured outputsYesYes
Code executionNoNo
IDE integrationNoNo
Computer useNoNo
Parallel agentsNoNo

Benchmarks

No shared benchmark scores are currently available for this pair.

Deep dive

The capability footprint differs most on vision: Kimi K2.7-Code and multimodal input: Kimi K2.7-Code. Both models share reasoning mode, function calling, tool use, and structured outputs, so the practical split is not just feature count. Use those differences to decide whether the page is about raw model quality, agentic coding support, multimodal ingestion, or predictable structured API behavior.

Pricing coverage is uneven: Kimi K2.7-Code has $0.95/1M input tokens and North Mini Code 1.0 has no token price sourced yet. Provider availability is 1 tracked routes versus 1. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.

Choose Kimi K2.7-Code when coding workflow support and larger context windows are central to the workload. Choose North Mini Code 1.0 when coding workflow support are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship. This keeps the decision grounded in measurable tradeoffs instead of brand-level assumptions. It also helps separate model capability from provider packaging, which can change cost and latency. For teams standardizing a stack, that distinction is often the difference between a benchmark win and a reliable deployment.

FAQ

Which has a larger context window, Kimi K2.7-Code or North Mini Code 1.0?

Kimi K2.7-Code supports 262k tokens, while North Mini Code 1.0 supports 256k tokens. That gap matters most for long documents, large codebases, retrieval-heavy agents, and conversations where earlier context must remain visible.

Is Kimi K2.7-Code or North Mini Code 1.0 open source?

Kimi K2.7-Code is listed under MIT. North Mini Code 1.0 is listed under Apache 2.0. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.

Which is better for vision, Kimi K2.7-Code or North Mini Code 1.0?

Kimi K2.7-Code has the clearer documented vision signal in this comparison. If vision is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ. Use this as a quick comparison signal, then confirm the provider-specific limits before committing to production.

Which is better for multimodal input, Kimi K2.7-Code or North Mini Code 1.0?

Kimi K2.7-Code has the clearer documented multimodal input signal in this comparison. If multimodal input is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.

Which is better for reasoning mode, Kimi K2.7-Code or North Mini Code 1.0?

Both Kimi K2.7-Code and North Mini Code 1.0 expose reasoning mode. The better choice depends on benchmark fit, context budget, pricing, and whether your provider route exposes the same capability surface.

Where can I run Kimi K2.7-Code and North Mini Code 1.0?

Kimi K2.7-Code is available on Moonshot AI Kimi. North Mini Code 1.0 is available on Cohere API. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options. Use this as a quick comparison signal, then confirm the provider-specific limits before committing to production.

Continue comparing

Last reviewed: 2026-06-14. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.