OpenAI compatible API · Attested · Public status

MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.7 Code vs Tencent: Hy3

MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.7 Code vs Tencent: Hy3: compare current API pricing, context, provider routes, privacy, p50 latency, and OpenAI-compatible access.

Verify gateway

Onebase URL to migrate

100sof models and routes

0prompt or output logs. Always.

Compare routesProviders, price, context, and policy posture in one view.

Use auto when uptime mattersKeep a primary model and let fallback handle provider failures.

Same API shapeUse the OpenAI client and set the model you want.

Practical read

Monthly evidence

Tencent: Hy3 has the lower cheapest prompt+completion route on TrustedRouter. MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.7 Code has more provider fallback routes, while MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.7 Code has the larger context window. Current TrustedRouter probes show Tencent: Hy3 with the lower p50 TTFT.

$4.29385/1MMoonshotAI: Kimi K2.7 Code cheapest route

$0.6963/1MTencent: Hy3 cheapest route

1263 msMoonshotAI: Kimi K2.7 Code fastest measured p50 TTFT via fireworks

746 msTencent: Hy3 fastest measured p50 TTFT via deepinfra

Prices and live route measurements can change. Use the monthly reports when you need a stable evidence window, then run a small task-specific eval before choosing a production default.

MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.7 CodeTencent: Hy3

Model idmoonshotai/kimi-k2.7-codetencent/hy3

Publisher Kimi DeepInfra

AI IQ IQ 118#33 IQ 103#77

Context262,144 tokens262,144 tokens

Credits provider routes134

Cheapest route$4.29385/1M$0.6963/1M

Cached input$0.15825/1M to $0.56548/1M$0.034815/1M to $0.05275/1M

Privacy posturehas ZDR routeprovider posture varies

Fastest measured p50 TTFT1263 ms via fireworks746 ms via deepinfra

Highest measured throughput129 tok/s via io-netnot enough data

Recent route uptime range80.00% to 100.00%100.00%

Modes chat chat

MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.7 Code routes

Overview13 Credits routes
PricingInput, cached input, and output rates
BenchmarksTrustedRouter and external sources
ProvidersAll serving providers

Tencent: Hy3 routes

Overview4 Credits routes
PricingInput, cached input, and output rates
ProvidersAll serving providers

Related comparisons

Browse every comparison

MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.7 Code vs Z.ai: GLM 5.244 combined provider routes
MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.7 Code vs MoonshotAI: Kimi K336 combined provider routes
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 vs MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.7 Code35 combined provider routes
MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.7 Code vs Z.ai: GLM 5.335 combined provider routes
Tencent: Hy3 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.235 combined provider routes
MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.7 Code vs Z.ai: GLM 5.3 Flash33 combined provider routes
MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.6 vs MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.7 Code32 combined provider routes
MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.7 Code vs OpenAI: gpt-oss-120b32 combined provider routes

Production choice

Pick a default model. Keep fallback enabled.

TrustedRouter is useful when you know the model you want, but still need provider rollover, budget limits, usage records, and a prompt path you can verify.

OpenAI clientPython

client = OpenAI(
    base_url="https://api.trustedrouter.com/v1",
    api_key="sk-tr-v1-..."
)

response = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="moonshotai/kimi-k2.7-code",
    messages=messages,
)

Questions

Which should I use, MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.7 Code or Tencent: Hy3?

Is MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.7 Code or Tencent: Hy3 cheaper?

The current cheapest TrustedRouter route is $4.29385/1M for MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.7 Code and $0.6963/1M for Tencent: Hy3. The comparison uses current catalog prices and updates as provider pricing changes.

Is MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.7 Code or Tencent: Hy3 faster?

Current measured p50 time to first token is 1263 ms for MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.7 Code and 746 ms for Tencent: Hy3. These are routed probe measurements, not vendor-advertised speeds, and update as new samples arrive.

Can I test MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.7 Code and Tencent: Hy3 with the same API?

Yes. Use the same OpenAI-compatible TrustedRouter base URL and API key, then change only the model id between moonshotai/kimi-k2.7-code and tencent/hy3. This makes side-by-side evals possible without maintaining two provider integrations.