Full Mannequin Comparability, Benchmarks & Use Instances

Fast Abstract: What separates Kimi K2, Qwen 3, and GLM 4.5 in 2025?

Reply: These three Chinese language‑constructed giant language fashions all leverage Combination‑of‑Specialists architectures, however they aim completely different strengths. Kimi K2 focuses on coding excellence and agentic reasoning with a 1‑trillion parameter structure (32 B energetic) and a 130 Okay token context window, providing 64–65 % scores on SWE‑bench whereas balancing value. Qwen 3 Coder is probably the most polyglot; it scales to 480 B parameters (35 B energetic), makes use of twin considering modes and extends its context window to 256 Okay–1 M tokens for repository‑scale duties. GLM 4.5 prioritises device‑calling and effectivity, attaining 90.6 % device‑calling success with solely 355 B parameters and requiring simply eight H20 chips for self‑internet hosting. The fashions’ pricing differs: Kimi K2 costs about $0.15 per million enter tokens, Qwen 3 about $0.35–0.60, and GLM 4.5 round $0.11. Choosing the proper mannequin relies on your workload: coding accuracy and agentic autonomy, prolonged context for refactoring, or device integration and low {hardware} footprint.

Fast Digest – Key Specs & Use‑Case Abstract

use this information

This in‑depth comparability attracts on impartial analysis, tutorial papers, and trade analyses to offer you an actionable perspective on these frontier fashions. Every part consists of an Professional Insights bullet checklist that includes quotes and statistics from researchers and trade thought leaders, alongside our personal commentary. All through the article, we additionally spotlight how Clarifai’s platform can assist deploy and high-quality‑tune these fashions for manufacturing use.

Why the Jap AI Revolution issues for builders

Chinese language AI firms are not chasing the West; they’re redefining the state-of-the-art. In 2025, Chinese language open‑supply fashions akin to Kimi K2, Qwen 3, and GLM 4.5 achieved SWE‑bench scores inside a number of factors of one of the best Western fashions whereas costing 10–100× much less. This disruptive worth‑efficiency ratio is just not a fluke – it’s rooted in strategic selections: optimized coding efficiency, agentic device integration, and a concentrate on open licensing.

A brand new benchmark of excellence

The SWE‑bench benchmark, launched by researchers at Princeton, assessments whether or not language fashions can resolve actual GitHub points throughout a number of information. Early variations of GPT‑4 barely solved 2 % of duties; but by 2025 these Chinese language fashions have been fixing 64–67 %. Importantly, their context home windows and device‑calling talents allow them to deal with complete codebases quite than toy issues.

Artistic instance: The 10x value disruption

Think about a startup constructing an AI coding assistant. It must course of 1 B tokens per 30 days. Utilizing a Western mannequin may cost $2,500–$15,000 month-to-month. By adopting GLM 4.5 or Kimi K2, the identical workload might value $110–$150, permitting the corporate to reinvest financial savings into product improvement and {hardware}. This financial leverage is why builders worldwide are paying consideration.

Professional Insights

• Princeton researchers spotlight that SWE‑bench duties require fashions to grasp a number of features and information concurrently, pushing them past easy code completions.
• Impartial analyses present that Chinese language fashions ship 10–100× value financial savings over Western options whereas approaching parity on benchmarks.
• Trade commentators word that open licensing and native deployment choices are driving speedy adoption.

Meet the fashions: Overview of Kimi K2, Qwen 3 Coder and GLM 4.5

Overview of Kimi K2

Kimi K2 is Moonshot AI’s flagship mannequin. It employs a Combination‑of‑Specialists (MoE) structure with 1 trillion complete parameters, however solely 32 B activate per token. This sparse design means you get the facility of an enormous mannequin with out huge compute necessities. The context window tops out at 130 Okay tokens, enabling it to ingest complete microservice codebases. SWE‑bench Verified scores place it at round 65 %, aggressive with Western proprietary fashions. The mannequin is priced at $0.15 per million enter tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens, making it appropriate for prime‑quantity deployments.

Kimi K2 shines in agentic coding. Its structure helps multi‑step device integration, so it cannot solely generate code but in addition execute features, name APIs, and run assessments autonomously. A combination of eight energetic consultants deal with every token, permitting area‑particular experience to emerge. The modified MIT license permits business use with minor attribution necessities.

Artistic instance: You’re tasked with debugging a posh Python utility. Kimi K2 can load all the repository, establish the problematic features, and write a repair that passes assessments. It could even name an exterior linter through Clarifai’s device orchestration, apply the beneficial modifications, and confirm them – all inside a single interplay.

Professional Insights

• Trade evaluators spotlight that Kimi K2’s 32 B energetic parameters permit excessive accuracy with decrease inference prices.
• The K2 Pondering variant extends context to 256 Okay tokens and exposes a reasoning_content area for transparency.
• Analysts word K2’s device‑calling success in multi‑step duties; it will possibly orchestrate 200–300 sequential device calls.

Overview of Qwen 3 Coder

Qwen 3 Coder—also known as Qwen 3.25—balances energy and adaptability. With 480 B complete parameters and 35 B energetic, it presents strong efficiency on coding benchmarks and reasoning duties. Its hallmark is the 256 Okay token native context window, which could be expanded to 1 M tokens utilizing context extension strategies. This makes Qwen significantly suited to repository‑scale refactoring and cross‑file understanding.

A singular characteristic is the twin considering modes: Fast mode for instantaneous completions and Deep considering mode for complicated reasoning. Twin modes let builders select between velocity and depth. Pricing varies by supplier however tends to be within the $0.35–0.60 vary per million enter tokens, with output prices round $1.50–2.20. Qwen is launched beneath Apache 2.0, permitting extensive business use.

Artistic instance: An e‑commerce firm must refactor a 200 okay‑line JavaScript monolith to fashionable React. Qwen 3 Coder can load all the repository because of its lengthy context, refactor parts throughout information, and preserve coherence. Its Fast mode will rapidly repair syntax errors, whereas Deep mode can redesign structure.

Professional Insights

• Evaluators emphasise Qwen’s polyglot help of 358 programming languages and 119 human languages, making it probably the most versatile.
• The twin‑mode structure helps stability latency and reasoning depth.
• Impartial benchmarks present Qwen achieves 67 % on SWE‑bench Verified, edging out its friends.

Overview of GLM 4.5

GLM 4.5, created by Z.AI, emphasises effectivity and agentic efficiency. Its 355 B complete parameters with 32 B energetic ship efficiency akin to bigger fashions whereas requiring eight Nvidia H20 chips. A lighter Air variant makes use of 106 B complete / 12 B energetic and runs on 32–64 GB VRAM, making self‑internet hosting extra accessible. The context window sits at 128 Okay tokens, which covers 99 % of actual use circumstances.

GLM 4.5’s standout characteristic is its agent‑native design: it incorporates planning and power execution into its core. Evaluations present a 90.6 % device‑calling success price, the very best amongst open fashions. It helps a Pondering Mode and a Non‑Pondering Mode; builders can toggle deep reasoning on or off. The mannequin is priced round $0.11 per million enter tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens. Its MIT license permits business deployment with out restrictions.

Artistic instance: A fintech startup makes use of GLM 4.5 to construct an AI agent that routinely responds to buyer tickets. The agent makes use of GLM’s device calls to fetch account information, run fraud checks, and generate responses. As a result of GLM runs quick on modest {hardware}, the corporate deploys it on an area Clarifai runner, guaranteeing compliance with monetary laws.

Professional Insights

• GLM 4.5’s 90.6 % device‑calling success surpasses different open fashions.
• Z.AI documentation emphasises its low value and excessive velocity with API prices as little as $0.2 per million tokens and technology speeds >100 tokens per second.
• Impartial assessments present GLM 4.5’s Air variant runs on shopper GPUs, making it interesting for on‑prem deployments.

How do these fashions differ in structure and context home windows?

Understanding Combination‑of‑Specialists and reasoning modes

All three fashions make use of Combination‑of‑Specialists (MoE), the place solely a subset of consultants prompts per token. This design reduces computation whereas enabling specialised consultants for duties like syntax, semantics, or reasoning. Kimi K2 selects 8 of its 384 consultants per token, whereas Qwen 3 makes use of 35 B energetic parameters for every inference. GLM 4.5 additionally makes use of 32 B energetic consultants however builds agentic planning into the structure.

Context home windows: balancing reminiscence and price

• Kimi K2 & GLM 4.5: ~128–130 Okay tokens. Excellent for typical codebases or multi‑doc duties.
• Qwen 3 Coder: 256 Okay tokens native; extendable to 1 M tokens with context extrapolation. Preferrred for big repositories or analysis the place lengthy contexts enhance coherence.
• K2 Pondering: extends to 256 Okay tokens with clear reasoning, exposing intermediate logic through the reasoning_content area.

Longer context home windows additionally improve prices and latency. Feeding 1 M tokens into Qwen 3 might value $1.20 only for enter processing. For many functions, 128 Okay suffices.

Reasoning modes and heavy vs mild modes

• Qwen 3 presents Fast and Deep modes: select velocity for autocompletion or depth for structure selections.
• GLM 4.5 presents Pondering Mode for complicated reasoning and Non‑Pondering Mode for quick responses.
• K2 Pondering features a Heavy Mode, operating eight reasoning trajectories in parallel to spice up accuracy at the price of compute.

Artistic instance

In case you’re analysing a authorized contract with 500 pages, Qwen 3’s 1 M token window can ingest all the doc and produce summaries with out chunking. For on a regular basis duties like debugging or design, 128 Okay is ample, and utilizing GLM 4.5 or Kimi K2 will scale back prices.

Professional Insights

• Z.AI documentation notes that GLM 4.5’s Pondering Mode and Non‑Pondering Mode could be toggled through the API, balancing velocity and depth.
• DataCamp emphasises that K2 Pondering makes use of a reasoning_content area to disclose every step, enhancing transparency.
• Researchers warning that longer context home windows drive up prices and will solely be crucial for specialised duties.

Benchmark & efficiency comparability

How do these fashions carry out throughout benchmarks?

Benchmarks like SWE‑bench, LiveCodeBench, BrowseComp, and GPQA reveal variations in power. Right here’s a snapshot:

• SWE‑bench Verified (bug fixing): Qwen 3 scores 67 %, Kimi K2 ~65 %, GLM 4.5 ~64 %.
• LiveCodeBench (code technology): GLM 4.5 leads with 74 %, Kimi K2 round 83 %, Qwen round 59 %.
• BrowseComp (net device use & reasoning): K2 Pondering scores 60.2, beating GPT‑5 and Claude Sonnet.
• GPQA (graduate physics): K2 Pondering scores ~84.5, near GPT‑5’s 85.7.

Device‑calling success: GLM 4.5 tops the charts with 90.6 %, whereas Qwen’s operate calls stay sturdy; K2’s success is comparable however not publicly quantified.

Artistic instance: Benchmark in motion

Image a developer utilizing every mannequin to repair 15 actual GitHub points. In line with an impartial evaluation, Kimi K2 accomplished 14/15 duties efficiently, whereas Qwen 3 managed 7/15. GLM wasn’t evaluated in that particular set, however separate assessments present its device‑calling excels at debugging.

Professional Insights

• Princeton researchers word that fashions should coordinate modifications throughout information to succeed on SWE‑bench, pushing them towards multi‑agent reasoning.
• Trade analysts warning that benchmarks don’t seize actual‑world variability; precise efficiency relies on area and information.
• Impartial assessments spotlight that Kimi K2’s actual‑world success price (93 %) surpasses its benchmark rating.

Price & pricing evaluation: Which mannequin offers one of the best worth?

Token pricing comparability

• Kimi K2: $0.15 per 1 M enter tokens and $2.50 per 1 M output tokens. For 100 M tokens per 30 days, that’s about $150 enter value.
• Qwen 3 Coder: Pricing varies; impartial evaluations checklist $0.35–0.60 enter and $1.50–2.20 output. Some suppliers provide decrease tiers at $0.25.
• GLM 4.5: $0.11 enter / $0.28 output; some sources quote $0.2/$1.1 for prime‑velocity variant.

Hidden prices & {hardware} necessities

Deploying regionally means VRAM and GPU necessities: Kimi K2 and Qwen 3 fashions want a number of excessive‑finish GPUs (usually 8× H100 NVL, ~1050 GB VRAM for Qwen, ~945 GB for GLM). GLM’s Air variant runs on 32–64 GB VRAM. Working within the cloud transfers prices to API utilization and storage.

Licensing & compliance

• GLM 4.5: MIT license permits business use with no restrictions.
• Qwen 3 Coder: Apache 2.0 license, open for business use.
• Kimi K2: Modified MIT license; free for many makes use of however requires attribution for merchandise exceeding 100 M month-to-month energetic customers or $20 M month-to-month income.

Artistic instance: Begin‑up budgeting

A mid‑sized SaaS firm desires to combine an AI code assistant processing 500 M tokens a month. Utilizing GLM 4.5 at $0.11 enter / $0.28 output, the associated fee is round $195 per 30 days. Utilizing Kimi K2 prices roughly $825 ($75 enter + $750 output). Qwen 3 falls between, relying on supplier pricing. For a similar capability, the associated fee distinction might pay for added builders or GPUs.

Professional Insights

• Z.AI’s documentation underscores that GLM 4.5 achieves excessive velocity and low value, making it engaging for prime‑quantity functions.
• Trade analyses level out that {hardware} effectivity influences complete value; GLM’s means to run on fewer chips reduces capital bills.
• Analysts warning that pricing tables seldom account for community and storage prices incurred when sending lengthy contexts to the cloud.

Device‑calling & agentic capabilities: Which mannequin behaves like an actual agent?

Why device‑calling issues

Device‑calling permits language fashions to execute features, question databases, name APIs, or use calculators. In an agentic system, the mannequin decides which device to make use of and when, enabling complicated workflows like analysis, debugging, information evaluation, and dynamic content material creation. Clarifai presents a device orchestration framework that seamlessly integrates these operate calls into your functions, abstracting API particulars and managing price limits.

Evaluating device‑calling efficiency

• GLM 4.5: Highest device‑calling success at 90.6 %. Its structure integrates planning and execution, making it a pure match for multi‑step workflows.
• Kimi K2 Pondering: Able to 200–300 sequential device calls, offering transparency through a reasoning hint.
• Qwen 3 Coder: Helps operate‑calling protocols and integrates with CLIs for code duties. Its twin modes permit fast switching between technology and reasoning.

Artistic instance: Automated analysis assistant

Suppose you’re constructing a analysis assistant that should collect information articles, summarise them, and create a report. GLM 4.5 can name an online search API, extract content material, run summarisation instruments, and compile outcomes. Clarifai’s workflow engine can handle the sequence, permitting the mannequin to name Clarifai’s NLP and Imaginative and prescient APIs for classification, sentiment evaluation, or picture tagging.

Professional Insights

• DataCamp emphasises that clear reasoning in K2 exposes intermediate steps, making it simpler to debug agent selections.
• Impartial assessments present GLM’s device‑calling leads in debugging eventualities, particularly reminiscence leak evaluation.
• Analysts word Qwen’s operate‑calling is powerful however relies on the encompassing device ecosystem and documentation.

Pace & effectivity: Which mannequin runs the quickest?

Technology velocity and latency

• GLM 4.5 presents 100+ tokens/sec technology speeds and claims peaks of 200 tokens/sec. Its first‑token latency is low, making it responsive for actual‑time functions.
• Kimi K2 produces about 47 tokens/sec with a 0.53 sec first‑token latency. When mixed with quantisation (INT4), K2’s throughput doubles with out sacrificing accuracy.
• Qwen 3 has variable velocity relying on mode: Fast mode is quick, however Deep mode incurs longer reasoning time. Working in multi‑GPU setups additional will increase throughput.

{Hardware} effectivity & quantisation

GLM 4.5’s structure emphasises {hardware} effectivity. It runs on eight H20 chips, and the Air variant runs on a single GPU, making it accessible for on‑prem deployment. K2 and Qwen require extra VRAM and a number of GPUs. Quantisation strategies like INT4 and heavy modes permit commerce‑offs between velocity and accuracy.

Artistic instance: Actual‑time chat vs. batch processing

In an actual‑time chat assistant for buyer help, GLM 4.5 or Qwen 3 Fast mode will ship fast responses with minimal delay. For batch code technology duties, Kimi K2 with heavy mode could ship increased high quality at the price of latency. Clarifai’s compute orchestration can schedule heavy duties on bigger GPU clusters and run fast duties on edge units.

Professional Insights

• Z.AI notes that GLM 4.5’s excessive‑velocity mode helps low latency and excessive concurrency, making it ultimate for interactive functions.
• Evaluators spotlight that K2’s quantisation doubles inference velocity with minimal accuracy loss.
• Trade analyses level out that Qwen’s deep mode is useful resource‑intensive, requiring cautious scheduling in manufacturing programs.

Language & multimodal help: Who speaks extra languages?

Multilingual capabilities

• Qwen 3 leads in language protection: 119 human languages and 358 programming languages. This makes it ultimate for worldwide groups, cross‑lingual analysis, or working with obscure codebases.
• GLM 4.5 presents sturdy multilingual help, significantly in Chinese language and English, and its visible variant (GLM 4.5‑V) extends to pictures and textual content.
• Kimi K2 specialises in code and is language‑agnostic for programming duties however doesn’t help as many human languages.

Multimodal extensions

GLM 4.5‑V accepts photos, enabling imaginative and prescient‑language duties like doc OCR or design layouts. Qwen has a VL Plus variant (imaginative and prescient + language). These multimodal fashions stay in early entry however will probably be pivotal for constructing brokers that perceive web sites, diagrams, and movies. Clarifai’s Imaginative and prescient API can complement these fashions by offering excessive‑precision classification, detection, and segmentation on photos and movies.

Artistic instance: International codebase translation

A multinational firm has code feedback in Mandarin, Spanish, and French. Qwen 3 can translate feedback whereas refactoring code, guaranteeing world groups perceive every operate. When mixed with Clarifai’s language detection fashions, the workflow turns into seamless.

Professional Insights

• Analysts word that Qwen’s polyglot help opens the door for legacy or area of interest programming languages and cross‑lingual documentation.
• Z.AI documentation emphasises GLM 4.5’s visible language variants for multimodal duties.
• Evaluations point out that Kimi K2’s concentrate on code ensures sturdy efficiency throughout programming languages, although it doesn’t cowl as many pure languages.

Actual‑world use circumstances & activity efficiency

Coding duties: constructing, refactoring & debugging

Impartial evaluations reveal clear strengths:

• Full‑stack characteristic implementation: Kimi K2 accomplished duties (e.g., constructing person authentication) in three prompts at low value. Qwen 3 produced glorious documentation however was slower and costlier. GLM 4.5 produced fundamental implementations rapidly however lacked depth.
• Legacy code refactoring: Qwen 3’s lengthy context allowed it to refactor a 2,000‑line jQuery file into React with reusable parts. Kimi K2 dealt with the duty however required splitting information due to its context restrict. GLM 4.5’s response was the quickest however left some jQuery patterns unchanged.
• Debugging manufacturing points: GLM 4.5 excelled at diagnosing reminiscence leaks utilizing device calls and accomplished the duty in minutes. Kimi K2 discovered the difficulty however required extra prompts.

Design & artistic duties

A comparative check producing UI parts (fashionable login web page and animated climate playing cards) confirmed all fashions might construct purposeful pages, however GLM 4.5 delivered probably the most refined design. Its Air variant achieved easy animations and polished UI particulars, demonstrating sturdy entrance‑finish capabilities.

Agentic duties & analysis

K2 Pondering orchestrated 200–300 device calls to conduct every day information analysis and synthesis. This makes it appropriate for agentic workflows akin to information evaluation, finance reporting, or complicated system administration. GLM 4.5 additionally carried out nicely, leveraging its excessive device‑calling success in duties like heap dump evaluation and automatic ticket responses.

Artistic instance: Automated code reviewer

You’ll be able to construct a code reviewer that scans pull requests, highlights points, and suggests fixes. The reviewer makes use of GLM 4.5 for fast evaluation and power invocation (e.g., operating linters), and Kimi K2 to suggest excessive‑high quality, context‑conscious code modifications. Clarifai’s annotation and workflow instruments handle the pipeline: capturing code snapshots, triggering mannequin calls, logging outcomes, and updating the event dashboard.

Professional Insights

• Evaluations present Kimi K2 is the most dependable in greenfield improvement, finishing 93 % of duties.
• Qwen 3 dominates giant‑scale refactoring because of its context window.
• GLM 4.5 outperforms in debugging and power‑dependent duties resulting from its excessive device‑calling success.

Deployment & ecosystem issues

API vs. self‑internet hosting

• Qwen 3 Max is API‑solely and costly. The open‑weight Qwen 3 Coder is offered through API and open supply, however scaling could require important {hardware}.
• Kimi K2 and GLM 4.5 provide downloadable weights with permissive licenses. You’ll be able to deploy them by yourself infrastructure, preserving information management and decreasing prices.

Documentation & group

• GLM 4.5 has nicely‑written documentation with examples, accessible in each English and Chinese language. Neighborhood boards actively help worldwide builders.
• Qwen 3 documentation could be sparse, requiring familiarity to make use of successfully.
• Kimi K2 documentation exists however feels incomplete.

Compliance & information sovereignty

Open fashions permit on‑prem deployment, guaranteeing information by no means leaves your infrastructure, important for GDPR and HIPAA compliance. API‑solely fashions require trusting the supplier along with your information. Clarifai presents on‑prem and personal‑cloud choices with encryption and entry controls, enabling organisations to deploy these fashions securely.

Artistic instance: Hybrid deployment

A healthcare firm desires to construct a coding assistant that processes affected person information. They use Kimi K2 regionally for code technology, and Clarifai’s safe workflow engine to orchestrate exterior API calls (e.g., affected person report retrieval), guaranteeing delicate information by no means leaves the organisation. For non‑delicate duties like UI design, they name GLM 4.5 through Clarifai’s platform.

Professional Insights

• Analysts stress that information sovereignty stays a key driver for open fashions; on‑prem deployment reduces compliance complications.
• Impartial evaluations suggest GLM 4.5 for builders needing thorough documentation and group help.
• Researchers warn that API‑solely fashions can incur excessive prices and create vendor lock‑in.

Rising traits & future outlook: What’s subsequent?

Agentic AI & clear reasoning

The subsequent frontier is agentic AI: programs that plan, act, and adapt autonomously. K2 Pondering and GLM 4.5 are early examples. K2’s reasoning_content area enables you to see how the mannequin solves issues. GLM’s hybrid modes reveal how fashions can swap between planning and execution. Anticipate future fashions to mix planner modules, retrieval engines, and execution layers seamlessly.

Combination‑of‑Specialists at scale

MoE architectures will proceed to scale, probably reaching multi‑trillion parameters whereas controlling inference value. Superior routing methods and dynamic knowledgeable choice will permit fashions to specialise additional. Analysis by Shazeer and colleagues laid the groundwork; Chinese language labs at the moment are pushing MoE into manufacturing.

Quantisation, heavy modes & sustainability

Quantisation reduces mannequin dimension and will increase velocity. INT4 quantisation doubles K2’s throughput. Heavy modes (e.g., K2’s eight parallel reasoning paths) enhance accuracy however elevate compute calls for. Hanging a stability between velocity, accuracy, and environmental impression will probably be a key analysis space.

Lengthy context home windows & reminiscence administration

The context arms race continues: Qwen 3 already helps 1 M tokens, and future fashions could go additional. Nonetheless, longer contexts improve value and complexity. Environment friendly retrieval, summarisation, and vector search (like Clarifai’s Context Engine) will probably be important.

Licensing & open‑supply momentum

Extra fashions are being launched beneath MIT or Apache licenses, empowering enterprises to deploy regionally and high-quality‑tune. Anticipate new variations: Qwen 3.25, GLM 4.6, and K2 Pondering enhancements are already on the horizon. These open releases will additional erode the benefit of proprietary fashions.

Geopolitics & compliance

{Hardware} restrictions (e.g., H20 chips vs. export‑managed A100) form mannequin design. Knowledge localisation legal guidelines drive adoption of on‑prem options. Enterprises might want to companion with platforms like Clarifai to navigate these challenges.

Professional Insights

• VentureBeat notes that K2 Pondering beats GPT‑5 in a number of reasoning benchmarks, signalling that the hole between open and proprietary fashions has closed.
• Vals AI updates present that K2 Pondering improves efficiency however faces latency challenges in comparison with GLM 4.6.
• Analysts predict that integrating retrieval‑augmented technology with lengthy context fashions will change into normal apply.

Conclusion & advice matrix

Which mannequin must you select?

Your choice relies on use case, price range, and infrastructure. Beneath is a suggestion:

How Clarifai suits in

Clarifai’s AI Platform helps you deploy and orchestrate these fashions with out worrying about {hardware} or complicated APIs. Use Clarifai’s compute orchestration to schedule heavy K2 jobs on GPU clusters, run GLM 4.5 Air on edge units, and combine Qwen 3 into multi‑modal workflows. Clarifai’s context engine improves lengthy‑context efficiency via environment friendly retrieval, and our mannequin hub enables you to swap fashions with a number of clicks. Whether or not you’re constructing an inside coding assistant, an autonomous agent, or a multilingual help bot, Clarifai offers the infrastructure and tooling to make these frontier fashions manufacturing‑prepared.

Incessantly Requested Questions

Which mannequin is finest for pure coding duties?

Kimi K2 usually delivers the very best accuracy on actual coding duties, finishing 14 of 15 duties in an impartial check. Nonetheless, Qwen 3 excels at giant codebases resulting from its lengthy context.

Who has the longest context window?

Qwen 3 Coder leads with a local 256 Okay token window, expandable to 1 M tokens. Kimi K2 and GLM 4.5 provide ~128 Okay.

Are these fashions open supply?

Sure. Kimi K2 is launched beneath a modified MIT license requiring attribution for very giant deployments. GLM 4.5 makes use of an MIT license. Qwen 3 is launched beneath Apache 2.0.

Can I run these fashions regionally?

Kimi K2 and GLM 4.5 present weights for self‑internet hosting. Qwen 3 presents open weights for smaller variants; the Max model stays API‑solely. Native deployments require a number of GPUs—GLM 4.5’s Air variant runs on shopper {hardware}.

How do I combine these fashions with Clarifai?

Use Clarifai’s compute orchestration to run heavy fashions on GPU clusters or native runners for on‑prem. Our API gateway helps a number of fashions via a unified interface. You’ll be able to chain Clarifai’s Imaginative and prescient and NLP fashions with LLM calls to construct brokers that perceive textual content, photos, and movies. Contact Clarifai’s help for steerage on high-quality‑tuning and deployment.

Are these fashions secure for delicate information?

Open fashions permit on‑prem deployment, so information stays inside your infrastructure, aiding compliance. At all times implement rigorous safety, logging, and anonymisation. Clarifai offers instruments for information governance and entry management.