r/kimi

Firstly, Kimi 2.8 - Its a great model. wow, what a win. Moonshot has a very good useful model. My work with it shows its pretty much like a more decisive, faster, less cluttered K3. Its solid, it gives good consistent performance over various workflows. I don't know how it will benchmark, but benchmarks are only one aspect, IMO they aren't as useful for most people as people like to think. However, I think K2.8 would benchmark very well, and be useful, and I think as a 2.x release, people are less worried about bench-maxxing, K3 is always there from the same provider and is a proven capable model. 2.8 IMO is the product people want from Moonshot, it has a clear space in the market, and being much faster and less draining than K3 is significant, we are at the point now where a very decent model is much more desirable than a slightly better, but much slower expensive model.

Its really surprising, because I have also tried GPT6 with a pro subscription and the slow speed and poor performance really has me looking at getting completely off that platform, as they have paused future developments and I am not happy with their output and tools. Being all cloud, and closed, its not that universally useful for me.

Secondly, this great model, will likely get more attention with a public weights release. K2.8 is big enough most people can't host it locally anyway, and those who can, often back up local hosting with cloud hosting (I do). But it is hard to build workflows around a "preview" model and having no offline model for privacy (I deal with peoples data, and it can't go into any cloud), is important.

I am rarely using K3 I am constantly using K2.8. Particularly at the current rates, its very attractive. There are special things where I want K3, I want elaborate, slow, deliberate, all states considered answers and K3 is great at that. But 90% of what I do is K2.8 is pretty much perfect.

I have the capabilities to host large models like K3 and K2 locally, concurrently, (slowly mostly through CPU inferencing - Im not Elon rich with banks of GB200s), and K2.8 would be a great model for a lot of people, like me, who can do that, and then have their Kimi subscriptions for fast conversations, on the go, and urgent work (which consumes my monthly allowance). But I having that offline capability, at 5 or 6 t/s means I can explore how it can embed more into my workflows, and convince others of the open superiority of this particular model.

Turns out it is the same crybaby like Fable or Sonnet or OpenAI models that bitch at anything related to automation and just say:

"I wont' do that."

I basically wasted $100 on this when there is literally no reason to use it other than Claude.

What is the point of these "chinese" models again?

The sad part is, I can't even use Opus 5 or Fable 5 on a codebase that Opus 4.6 has built, because it freaks out when reading it or trying to fix a bug.

I thought Kimi 3 could fill this gap, but I was wrong.

AI is just a tool, and you need the right tool for the right job, but if models are just getting more restricted, what is the point and solution here?

Yes thats right it SUCKS now. You have to wait for a month to use it and again just use QWEN AI its much much more better.

Hi everyone,

Has anyone switched from Codex to Kimi Code while working on an existing application? I’m really unhappy about the usage allowance on the $200 Codex plan being cut in half, so I’m considering switching.

How does Kimi Code compare in day-to-day use, particularly in terms of code quality, reliability, and usage limits?

my codebase:

We primarily use Python for the backend and TypeScript/React for the frontend.

The repository currently contains 2,829 Git-tracked files. Of these, 2,536 are Python, TypeScript, or TSX files, totaling approximately 986,000 lines. Including documentation and other text files, the total is approximately 1.14 million lines. The code count includes tests; Python backend tests account for approximately 402,000 lines.

Short answer for the form: “Primarily Python, alongside TypeScript/React; approximately 2,800 files and 1 million lines of code, including tests.”

BR Tom

Hey everyone,

I'm coming from Qwen, and was wondering if Kimi was worth it with a Plus subscription ? I use it mainly to create documentation, websites and small coding features such as JS/PHP. I did burn through the Qwen 3.8 plan working on physics simulation project though.

EDIT : Woaw, damn, I think I'll try a low subscription for a month and move on if needed. Thanks everyone.

I want to like Kimi. K3 is genuinely good. But the plan has become unusable for me, and I'd like to know if others are seeing the same thing.

My situation

- I was on Allegretto and upgraded to Allegro, paid for a full year up front.

- Since then I hit my monthly quota in under 2 weeks, consistently, so I'm locked out for about 2 weeks of every month.

- Today (Oct 4) the API returns:

`403 You've reached your monthly usage limit for this billing cycle. Your quota will be refreshed in the next cycle. To continue now, purchase extra usage or upgrade your plan`

- I'm already on the bigger plan. "Upgrade your plan" isn't an answer when the upgrade is what made it feel worse.

It isn't runaway automation

I checked this before posting. I use Kimi alongside other coding agents, and some of my scripts can call Kimi automatically. I went through the session logs of everything that can call it: in the two weeks before the quota ran out, my scripts called Kimi once. Everything else was me, working normally.

There's no way to see where the quota goes

- The usage page in the account is useless for working out what consumed the quota: no per-session or per-request breakdown I can act on.

- Kimi's desktop and CLI tools keep no token or usage accounting locally. I went through every Kimi folder on my machine. The only recurring log is an hourly "daemon alive" analytics ping. So there's nothing to audit on my side either.

- Compare that with OpenAI Codex: I could pull per-request token counts and the exact % of my window each call used straight from its local session files, and work out exactly what was expensive. With Kimi, I'm blind.

No resets

Codex, GLM and others give you usage resets for exactly this situation. Kimi has nothing: you wait out the cycle or pay again on top of an annual plan.

What I'm asking Moonshot for

1. A real usage breakdown: tokens per session/request, and which model and feature used them.

2. Clarity on what changed. The same kind of work now uses a month's quota in under 2 weeks. If metering changed (thinking tokens, context re-sends, tool calls, image input), say so.

3. Resets or rollover for annual subscribers, like competitors offer.

4. A pro-rated refund option for annual subscribers if the plan no longer delivers what it did when we paid.

Questions for the community

- Are other Allegro/Allegretto users hitting the monthly cap in 1–2 weeks?

- Has anyone gotten a useful usage breakdown from support?

- Did you notice consumption jump at a specific point (a model update or a K3 rollout)?

For now I'm moving my work to other tools. If anyone from Moonshot reads this, I'm happy to share the exact error responses and timestamps.

Refund request denied/delayed: months of wasted credits on failed generations, support keeps stalling. Advice?

Hi all, posting here because support has not resolved this and I've seen the team monitors this subreddit.

What happened: I've been an annual subscriber since 2026/08/21 paid €159,73. For over two months I've been working on a video project using Kimi Work's image/audio/video generation.

The problem: A significant share of my monthly credits was consumed by outputs that were defective and had to be regenerated or re-rendered:

A full batch of generated images came out with wrong lighting/ambience (unusable, regenerated)

Character consistency failures (signature eye-color detail lost across images, regenerated)

Audio mixes with seconds of silence and audible loops in the final rendered videos (re-rendered multiple times)

Several generation tasks failed outright with API errors after credits were consumed

I kept track: roughly 90% of my credits across and [month] went into work that was discarded or redone due to these defects.

Support interaction: I contacted membership@[moonshot] asking for a refund/compensation. Instead of addressing the request, support asked me for (A) a share link to a Kimi Work conversation — which doesn't exist, because Work conversations are stored locally and have no share links — and (B) to "provide feedback", without any commitment on the refund.

My position: Per your own policy, tasks that fail with no valid result should be refunded. I've asked the team to check their own server-side usage logs for my account: the failed tasks, errors and re-renders are all recorded there. I shouldn't need to prove anything they can verify in their own archives.

What I'm asking: a refund of the annual subscription to the original payment method, given that the work produced was either unusable or completely substandard. Failing this, I reserve the right to take further action to protect my interests, including seeking additional compensation.

Prefer to resolve this privately — posting publicly because email alone hasn't worked.

u/KimiMoonshot can you help?