
Real head-to-head · same prompt, one shot
Kimi K2.7 vs Fugu Ultra 1.1
The heavy lifter — frontier coder at flat-rate. vs Sakana's multi-agent orchestrator, v1.1 — routes experts per request.
What I tested — same prompt, two models
I run the same fixed prompt set through every new model the day it drops — same string, one shot, single HTML file out — and I score the result 0–10 on whether it ran, how close it hit the brief, and how good it looked. Below is what came out when I gave the exact same prompts to Kimi K2.7 and Fugu Ultra 1.1, side by side, on 0 shared tasks inside the Agent Operating System.
Both models were given identical prompts inside the Agent Operating System — no help, no iteration, no "best of N" tricks. I run each prompt once, save the HTML file the model produces, and score it 0–10 on whether it ran, how close it hit the brief, and how good it looked. The scoring is mine. The verdicts below are pulled from my source comparison guides at agentos.guide where I publish every score and the reasoning behind it.
Kimi K2.7 · Wired into the Agent OS as the heavy-lifter for game/sim prototypes and Kanban-dispatched code work. Mode toggled per task: Quality for one-shot games, Fast for short bursts.
Fugu Ultra 1.1 · Benched on GoldieBench via Sakana's Responses API (fugu-ultra-v1.1, xhigh reasoning). Game tasks use the skill-infused threejs-game-director prompt plus a controls+graphics fix loop with an anti-regression clamp, judged on a real mid-play frame by the same Opus judge as the field.
Side-by-side on 47 shared tasks
Click any cell to play that model's actual one-shot attempt. Medals are derived from my 0–10 scores per task (highest = 🥇, second = 🥈, third = 🥉).
Task ↓
Kimi K2.7
Fugu Ultra 1.1
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Page
— not attempted —
Strengths & weaknesses I logged
Kimi K2.7
Strengths
- Best-of-three on interactive games — raycaster, DOOM, monster AI
- Three speed modes (Fast / No-Think / Quality) you can swap per task
- Flat-rate plan eliminates the per-token meter, so iteration is free
Trade-offs
- Plays plainest on abstract visual prompts — synthwave grids, fluid sims, aurora — where GLM and Opus add more flair
- Bronze average on the Goldie Bench bench despite the gold-medal games — its visual builds are accurate but understated
Fugu Ultra 1.1
Strengths
- Orchestrates 1-3 expert agents per request and synthesises their answers
- Reported SWE-Bench Pro 73.7 — above Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 on Sakana's table
- OpenAI- and Anthropic-compatible API — drop-in for Codex and Claude Code
Trade-offs
- Benched as a partial run until the full 50-task batch completes
- Region-locked: unavailable across the EU/EEA/UK/CH — access depends on where you are
Pricing & context — the spec sheet
| Spec | Kimi K2.7 | Fugu Ultra 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Vendor | Moonshot AI | Sakana AI |
| Context window | 256,000 tokens | 1,000,000-token context window |
| Price | Flat plan (no per-token bill) | API · orchestration billed |
| Pricing detail | Available on Moonshot's flat-rate subscription plan — no per-token billing for individual builders. The plan covers all three speed modes (Fast, No-Think, Quality). Vendor: Moonshot AI (moonshot.ai), based in Beijing. | Sakana's Fugu Ultra v1.1 — a multi-agent system served as a model: an orchestrator routes each request across one to three expert agents and synthesises the answer. Reported (v1.0): SWE-Bench Pro 73.7, LiveCodeBench 93.2, GPQA Diamond 95.5. NOTE: Sakana geo-blocks the EU/EEA/UK/Switzerland pending GDPR compliance — benched from an allowed region. |
| Release | 2026-06 | 2026-07 |
| Bench coverage | 25/47 scored · avg 7.46/10 | 0/0 scored · avg — |
The verdict — which should you pick?
Not enough scored shared tasks yet for a head-to-head average. The live demos for both are on the matrix above — play them and form your own opinion.
If you only run one of these inside your stack, the head-to-head average above is the call. If you can run both, my honest play is to wire Kimi K2.7 and Fugu Ultra 1.1 both into the Agent Operating System and dispatch each from the kanban by task type — interactive game prototypes you want shippable on the first prompt → Kimi K2.7, hard, high-stakes coding and reasoning where answer quality beats latency → Fugu Ultra 1.1. That's the same setup I run for the 4,000+ founders inside the AI Profit Boardroom.
FAQ — Kimi K2.7 vs Fugu Ultra 1.1
Which is better, Kimi K2.7 or Fugu Ultra 1.1?
On Goldie Bench, Kimi K2.7 averages no scored verdicts yet across the shared tasks, with 1 gold, 2 silver, 0 bronze overall. Fugu Ultra 1.1 averages no scored verdicts yet, with 0 gold, 0 silver, 0 bronze. Not enough scored shared tasks yet to call a winner.
How much does Kimi K2.7 cost vs Fugu Ultra 1.1?
Kimi K2.7: Available on Moonshot's flat-rate subscription plan — no per-token billing for individual builders. The plan covers all three speed modes (Fast, No-Think, Quality). Vendor: Moonshot AI (moonshot.ai), based in Beijing. Fugu Ultra 1.1: Sakana's Fugu Ultra v1.1 — a multi-agent system served as a model: an orchestrator routes each request across one to three expert agents and synthesises the answer. Reported (v1.0): SWE-Bench Pro 73.7, LiveCodeBench 93.2, GPQA Diamond 95.5. NOTE: Sakana geo-blocks the EU/EEA/UK/Switzerland pending GDPR compliance — benched from an allowed region.
What's the context window for Kimi K2.7 vs Fugu Ultra 1.1?
Kimi K2.7 has a 256,000 tokens context window. Fugu Ultra 1.1 has a 1,000,000-token context window context window.
When should I pick Kimi K2.7 over Fugu Ultra 1.1?
Pick Kimi K2.7 for: Interactive game prototypes you want shippable on the first prompt; High-iteration agent loops where per-token cost would dominate; Long-context refactors using the 256K window inside Agent OS. The trade-off is the weaknesses we logged on the bench: Plays plainest on abstract visual prompts — synthwave grids, fluid sims, aurora — where GLM and Opus add more flair; Bronze average on the {{SITE_NAME}} bench despite the gold-medal games — its visual builds are accurate but understated.
When should I pick Fugu Ultra 1.1 over Kimi K2.7?
Pick Fugu Ultra 1.1 for: Hard, high-stakes coding and reasoning where answer quality beats latency; Agentic workflows in Codex / Claude Code via the drop-in provider config; One-shot builds you want a panel of experts on, not a single model. The trade-off is the weaknesses we logged on the bench: Benched as a partial run until the full 50-task batch completes; Region-locked: unavailable across the EU/EEA/UK/CH — access depends on where you are.
How does Goldie Bench score Kimi K2.7 vs Fugu Ultra 1.1?
Every demo on this page was built by Julian Goldie inside the Agent Operating System — same fixed prompt for both models, one shot, single HTML file out. Each result gets a 0–10 score on whether it ran, how close it hit the brief, and how good it looked. The highest score on each task gets gold; second gets silver; third gets bronze. See methodology for full provenance.
Related comparisons
Other head-to-heads using the same scoring system:
Kimi K2.7 vs Fusion Fugu Ultra 1.1 vs Fusion Kimi K2.7 vs Hermes MoA Fugu Ultra 1.1 vs Hermes MoA Kimi K2.7 vs GPT-5.6 Sol Fugu Ultra 1.1 vs GPT-5.6 Sol Kimi K2.7 vs Claude Fable 5 Fugu Ultra 1.1 vs Claude Fable 5Full model pages: Kimi K2.7 · Fugu Ultra 1.1 · back to the leaderboard
The same stack Julian uses
Run this stack yourself.
Every demo on this bench was built inside the Agent Operating System — one prompt, one shot, single HTML file out. The Agent OS, the prompts, the templates, the weekly walkthroughs and 4,000+ founders shipping with it every day all live inside the AI Profit Boardroom.
4,000+founders
258documented wins
38countries
$59/momonthly






















