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 massive 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 price. 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 software‑calling and effectivity, reaching 90.6 % software‑calling success with solely 355 B parameters and requiring simply eight H20 chips for self‑internet hosting. The fashions’ pricing differs: Kimi K2 prices about $0.15 per million enter tokens, Qwen 3 about $0.35–0.60, and GLM 4.5 round $0.11. Selecting the best mannequin will depend on your workload: coding accuracy and agentic autonomy, prolonged context for refactoring, or software integration and low {hardware} footprint.

Fast Digest – Key Specs & Use‑Case Abstract

The way to use this information

This in‑depth comparability attracts on unbiased analysis, tutorial papers, and trade analyses to provide 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 may also help deploy and wonderful‑tune these fashions for manufacturing use.

Why the Japanese AI Revolution issues for builders

Chinese language AI corporations are now not chasing the West; they’re redefining the cutting-edge. In 2025, Chinese language open‑supply fashions similar to Kimi K2, Qwen 3, and GLM 4.5 achieved SWE‑bench scores inside just a few factors of the most effective Western fashions whereas costing 10–100× much less. This disruptive worth‑efficiency ratio will not be a fluke – it’s rooted in strategic decisions: optimized coding efficiency, agentic software integration, and a give attention to open licensing.

A brand new benchmark of excellence

The SWE‑bench benchmark, launched by researchers at Princeton, exams 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 software‑calling talents allow them to deal with complete codebases moderately than toy issues.

Inventive instance: The 10x price disruption

Think about a startup constructing an AI coding assistant. It must course of 1 B tokens monthly. 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 price $110–$150, permitting the corporate to reinvest financial savings into product growth and {hardware}. This financial leverage is why builders worldwide are paying consideration.

Professional Insights

• Princeton researchers spotlight that SWE‑bench duties require fashions to know a number of features and information concurrently, pushing them past easy code completions.
• Unbiased analyses present that Chinese language fashions ship 10–100× price financial savings over Western options whereas approaching parity on benchmarks.
• Trade commentators be aware 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 whole 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 top‑quantity deployments.

Kimi K2 shines in agentic coding. Its structure helps multi‑step software integration, so it cannot solely generate code but additionally execute features, name APIs, and run exams autonomously. A mix 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.

Inventive instance: You’re tasked with debugging a posh Python utility. Kimi K2 can load all the repository, determine the problematic features, and write a repair that passes exams. It may possibly even name an exterior linter through Clarifai’s software 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 Considering variant extends context to 256 Okay tokens and exposes a reasoning_content area for transparency.
• Analysts be aware K2’s software‑calling success in multi‑step duties; it could possibly orchestrate 200–300 sequential software calls.

Overview of Qwen 3 Coder

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

A novel characteristic is the twin considering modes: Speedy 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 underneath Apache 2.0, permitting large business use.

Inventive 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 elements throughout information, and keep coherence. Its Speedy mode will shortly repair syntax errors, whereas Deep mode can redesign structure.

Professional Insights

• Evaluators emphasise Qwen’s polyglot assist of 358 programming languages and 119 human languages, making it probably the most versatile.
• The twin‑mode structure helps steadiness latency and reasoning depth.
• Unbiased 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 whole 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 whole / 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 instances.

GLM 4.5’s standout characteristic is its agent‑native design: it incorporates planning and gear execution into its core. Evaluations present a 90.6 % software‑calling success price, the very best amongst open fashions. It helps a Considering Mode and a Non‑Considering 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.

Inventive instance: A fintech startup makes use of GLM 4.5 to construct an AI agent that robotically responds to buyer tickets. The agent makes use of GLM’s software calls to fetch account knowledge, 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, making certain compliance with monetary laws.

Professional Insights

• GLM 4.5’s 90.6 % software‑calling success surpasses different open fashions.
• Z.AI documentation emphasises its low price and excessive velocity with API prices as little as $0.2 per million tokens and technology speeds >100 tokens per second.
• Unbiased exams present GLM 4.5’s Air variant runs on client 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. Good for typical codebases or multi‑doc duties.
• Qwen 3 Coder: 256 Okay tokens native; extendable to 1 M tokens with context extrapolation. Preferrred for giant repositories or analysis the place lengthy contexts enhance coherence.
• K2 Considering: extends to 256 Okay tokens with clear reasoning, exposing intermediate logic through the reasoning_content area.

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

Reasoning modes and heavy vs mild modes

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

Inventive instance

When 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 adequate, and utilizing GLM 4.5 or Kimi K2 will cut back prices.

Professional Insights

• Z.AI documentation notes that GLM 4.5’s Considering Mode and Non‑Considering Mode will be toggled through the API, balancing velocity and depth.
• DataCamp emphasises that K2 Considering makes use of a reasoning_content area to disclose every step, enhancing transparency.
• Researchers warning that longer context home windows drive up prices and should solely be essential 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 (internet software use & reasoning): K2 Considering scores 60.2, beating GPT‑5 and Claude Sonnet.
• GPQA (graduate physics): K2 Considering scores ~84.5, near GPT‑5’s 85.7.

Instrument‑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.

Inventive instance: Benchmark in motion

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

Professional Insights

• Princeton researchers be aware 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 will depend on area and knowledge.
• Unbiased exams spotlight that Kimi K2’s actual‑world success price (93 %) surpasses its benchmark rating.

Price & pricing evaluation: Which mannequin provides the most effective 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 monthly, that’s about $150 enter price.
• Qwen 3 Coder: Pricing varies; unbiased evaluations checklist $0.35–0.60 enter and $1.50–2.20 output. Some suppliers supply decrease tiers at $0.25.
• GLM 4.5: $0.11 enter / $0.28 output; some sources quote $0.2/$1.1 for top‑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 (typically 8× H100 NVL, ~1050 GB VRAM for Qwen, ~945 GB for GLM). GLM’s Air variant runs on 32–64 GB VRAM. Operating 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.

Inventive 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 fee is round $195 monthly. Utilizing Kimi K2 prices roughly $825 ($75 enter + $750 output). Qwen 3 falls between, relying on supplier pricing. For a similar capability, the 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 price, making it engaging for top‑quantity functions.
• Trade analyses level out that {hardware} effectivity influences whole price; 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.

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

Why software‑calling issues

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

Evaluating software‑calling efficiency

• GLM 4.5: Highest software‑calling success at 90.6 %. Its structure integrates planning and execution, making it a pure match for multi‑step workflows.
• Kimi K2 Considering: Able to 200–300 sequential software 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.

Inventive 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 internet 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.
• Unbiased exams present GLM’s software‑calling leads in debugging eventualities, particularly reminiscence leak evaluation.
• Analysts be aware Qwen’s operate‑calling is powerful however will depend on the encircling software ecosystem and documentation.

Velocity & 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: Speedy mode is quick, however Deep mode incurs longer reasoning time. Operating 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 methods like INT4 and heavy modes permit commerce‑offs between velocity and accuracy.

Inventive instance: Actual‑time chat vs. batch processing

In an actual‑time chat assistant for buyer assist, GLM 4.5 or Qwen 3 Speedy mode will ship fast responses with minimal delay. For batch code technology duties, Kimi K2 with heavy mode could ship greater 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 gadgets.

Professional Insights

• Z.AI notes that GLM 4.5’s excessive‑velocity mode helps low latency and excessive concurrency, making it excellent 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 techniques.

Language & multimodal assist: Who speaks extra languages?

Multilingual capabilities

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

Multimodal extensions

GLM 4.5‑V accepts pictures, 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 shall 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 pictures and movies.

Inventive instance: World codebase translation

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

Professional Insights

• Analysts be aware that Qwen’s polyglot assist 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 give attention to code ensures sturdy efficiency throughout programming languages, although it doesn’t cowl as many pure languages.

Actual‑world use instances & job efficiency

Coding duties: constructing, refactoring & debugging

Unbiased evaluations reveal clear strengths:

• Full‑stack characteristic implementation: Kimi K2 accomplished duties (e.g., constructing person authentication) in three prompts at low price. Qwen 3 produced wonderful documentation however was slower and dearer. GLM 4.5 produced primary implementations shortly 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 elements. 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 software calls and accomplished the duty in minutes. Kimi K2 discovered the problem however required extra prompts.

Design & artistic duties

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

Agentic duties & analysis

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

Inventive 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 gear invocation (e.g., working 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 growth, finishing 93 % of duties.
• Qwen 3 dominates massive‑scale refactoring because of its context window.
• GLM 4.5 outperforms in debugging and gear‑dependent duties because of its excessive software‑calling success.

Deployment & ecosystem concerns

API vs. self‑internet hosting

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

Documentation & neighborhood

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

Compliance & knowledge sovereignty

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

Inventive instance: Hybrid deployment

A healthcare firm desires to construct a coding assistant that processes affected person knowledge. They use Kimi K2 regionally for code technology, and Clarifai’s safe workflow engine to orchestrate exterior API calls (e.g., affected person document retrieval), making certain delicate knowledge 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 knowledge sovereignty stays a key driver for open fashions; on‑prem deployment reduces compliance complications.
• Unbiased evaluations suggest GLM 4.5 for builders needing thorough documentation and neighborhood assist.
• Researchers warn that API‑solely fashions can incur excessive prices and create vendor lock‑in.

Rising developments & future outlook: What’s subsequent?

Agentic AI & clear reasoning

The following frontier is agentic AI: techniques that plan, act, and adapt autonomously. K2 Considering 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 display 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 price. 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 increase compute calls for. Hanging a steadiness between velocity, accuracy, and environmental impression shall 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. Nevertheless, longer contexts enhance price and complexity. Environment friendly retrieval, summarisation, and vector search (like Clarifai’s Context Engine) shall be important.

Licensing & open‑supply momentum

Extra fashions are being launched underneath MIT or Apache licenses, empowering enterprises to deploy regionally and wonderful‑tune. Anticipate new variations: Qwen 3.25, GLM 4.6, and K2 Considering 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. Information localisation legal guidelines drive adoption of on‑prem options. Enterprises might want to associate with platforms like Clarifai to navigate these challenges.

Professional Insights

• VentureBeat notes that K2 Considering 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 Considering improves efficiency however faces latency challenges in comparison with GLM 4.6.
• Analysts predict that integrating retrieval‑augmented technology with lengthy context fashions will develop into normal apply.

Conclusion & advice matrix

Which mannequin must you select?

Your choice will depend on use case, finances, and infrastructure. Under is a suggestion:

How Clarifai matches 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 gadgets, and combine Qwen 3 into multi‑modal workflows. Clarifai’s context engine improves lengthy‑context efficiency by environment friendly retrieval, and our mannequin hub enables you to swap fashions with just a few clicks. Whether or not you’re constructing an inner coding assistant, an autonomous agent, or a multilingual assist bot, Clarifai supplies the infrastructure and tooling to make these frontier fashions manufacturing‑prepared.

Ceaselessly Requested Questions

Which mannequin is greatest for pure coding duties?

Kimi K2 typically delivers the very best accuracy on actual coding duties, finishing 14 of 15 duties in an unbiased check. Nevertheless, Qwen 3 excels at massive codebases because of 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 supply ~128 Okay.

Are these fashions open supply?

Sure. Kimi K2 is launched underneath a modified MIT license requiring attribution for very massive deployments. GLM 4.5 makes use of an MIT license. Qwen 3 is launched underneath 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 client {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 by 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, pictures, and movies. Contact Clarifai’s assist for steering on wonderful‑tuning and deployment.

Are these fashions secure for delicate knowledge?

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