ChatGPT vs Kimi for Coding

ChatGPT and Kimi are virtually matched on core coding benchmarks (77.2% vs 76.8% on SWE-bench), but ChatGPT's integrated code execution, web search, and file uploads make it the more practical choice for real-world development workflows. Kimi excels at algorithmic reasoning and costs significantly less, making it strong for competitive programming and mathematical problem-solving, but its lack of execution capabilities and documentation primarily in Chinese limits its appeal for most developers. For professional coding work, ChatGPT remains the better all-around tool; choose Kimi if you prioritize cost or reasoning-heavy tasks.

Head-to-Head for Coding

Code Generation Capability

ChatGPT

ChatGPT

Slightly superior performance

Kimi

Nearly equal performance

Context Window Size

ChatGPT

ChatGPT

Larger context window

Kimi

Smaller context window

Code Execution & Testing

ChatGPT

ChatGPT

Can execute code

Kimi

No execution capability

API Cost Efficiency

Kimi

ChatGPT

Premium pricing model

Kimi

Highly affordable API

File Upload & Integration

ChatGPT

ChatGPT

Full file support

Kimi

No file uploads

See Them Answer a Coding Question

We asked both models the same coding-focused prompt.

Build a Python function that reads a CSV file, detects duplicate rows based on a user-specified column, and outputs a cleaned version with duplicates removed and a summary report of what was deleted.

GPT-5.4

Build a Python function that reads a CSV file, detects duplicate rows based on a user-specified column, and outputs a cleaned version with duplicates removed and a summary report of what was deleted.

import csv
from pathlib import Path
from typing import Dict, List, Any


def remove_duplicate_rows(
    input_csv: str,
    output_csv: str,
    duplicate_column: str,
    report_csv: str = None,
    keep: str = "first",
    encoding: str = "utf-8"
) -> Dict[str, Any]:
    """
    Read a CSV file, remove duplicate rows based on a specified column,
    write the cleaned CSV, and return a summary report.

    Args:
        input_csv: Path to input CSV file.
        output_csv: Path to cleaned output CSV file.
        duplicate_column: Column name used to detect duplicates.
        report_csv: Optional path to save deleted duplicate rows as a CSV report.
        keep: Which duplicate to keep: "first" or "last".
        encoding: File encoding.

    Returns:
        Dictionary summary with deletion details.
    """
    input_path = Path(input_csv)
    output_path = Path(output_csv)

    if not input_path.exists():
        raise FileNotFoundError(f"Input file not found: {input_csv}")

    if keep not in {"first", "last"}:
        raise ValueError("keep must be either 'first' or 'last'")

    with input_path.open("r", newline="", encoding=encoding) as f:
        reader = csv.DictReader(f)
        fieldnames = reader.fieldnames

        if not fieldnames:
            raise ValueError("CSV file has no header row")

        if duplicate_column not in fieldnames:
            raise ValueError(
                f"Column '{duplicate_column}' not found in CSV headers: {fieldnames}"
            )

        rows = list(reader)

    deleted_rows: List[Dict[str, str]] = []
    cleaned_rows: List[Dict[str, str]] = []

    if keep == "first":
        seen = set()
        for row in rows:
            key = row.get(duplicate_column)
            if key in seen:
                deleted_rows.append(row)
            else:
                seen.add(key)
                cleaned_rows.append(row)

    elif keep == "last":
        last_seen_index = {}
        for i, row in enumerate(rows):
            last_seen_index[row.get(duplicate_column)] = i

        for i, row in enumerate(rows):
            key = row.get(duplicate_column)
            if last_seen_index[key] == i:
                cleaned_rows.append(row)
            else:
                deleted_rows.append(row)

    with output_path.open("w", newline="", encoding=encoding) as f:
        writer = csv.DictWriter(f, fieldnames=fieldnames)
        writer.writeheader()
        writer.writerows(cleaned_rows)

    if report_csv:
        report_path = Path(report_csv)
        report_fieldnames = fieldnames + ["_deleted_reason"]
        with report_path.open("w", newline="", encoding=encoding) as f:
            writer = csv.DictWriter(f, fieldnames=report_fieldnames)
            writer.writeheader()
            for row in deleted_rows:
                report_row = dict(row)
                report_row["_deleted_reason"] = (
                    f"Duplicate based on column '{duplicate_column}'"
                )
                writer.writerow(report_row)

    summary = {
        "input_file": str(input_path),
        "output_file": str(output_path),
        "duplicate_column": duplicate_column,
        "total_rows_read": len(rows),
        "rows_kept": len(cleaned_rows),
        "rows_deleted": len(deleted_rows),
        "deleted_values": [row[duplicate_column] for row in deleted_rows],
    }

    if report_csv:
        summary["report_file"] = str(report_csv)

    return summary

Example usage

summary = remove_duplicate_rows(
    input_csv="data.csv",
    output_csv="data_cleaned.csv",
    duplicate_column="email",
    report_csv="deleted_duplicates_report.csv",
    keep="first"
)

print(summary)

Example summary output

{
    'input_file': 'data.csv',
    'output_file': 'data_cleaned.csv',
    'duplicate_column': 'email',
    'total_rows_read': 100,
    'rows_kept': 92,
    'rows_deleted': 8,
    'deleted_values': [
        'alice@example.com',
        'bob@example.com'
    ],
    'report_file': 'deleted_duplicates_report.csv'
}

If you want, I can also provide:

  1. a pandas-based version,
  2. a command-line script, or
  3. a version that detects duplicates using multiple columns.

Try coding tasks with both models

See ChatGPT and Kimi answer side by side in Multichat

Try it yourself — free

Detailed Breakdown

When it comes to coding assistance, ChatGPT and Kimi are remarkably close competitors — and the benchmark data proves it. ChatGPT scores 77.2% on SWE-bench Verified, while Kimi trails by just 0.4 points at 76.8%. For most developers, that gap is functionally invisible. What separates them is the surrounding ecosystem and practical workflow integration.

ChatGPT's coding strengths go well beyond raw model capability. The ability to execute code directly in the chat, upload files and codebases for review, and browse the web for documentation or Stack Overflow answers makes it a remarkably complete development companion. Working on a React bug and need to check the latest Next.js release notes? ChatGPT can pull that in real time. Need to run a Python script to verify your logic? It can do that too. Canvas mode also lets you iterate on code in a persistent editor-like interface, which is a genuine productivity boost for longer coding sessions. These features matter enormously in real-world development workflows.

Kimi's standout coding credential is its LiveCodeBench v6 score of 85.0%, which signals strong performance on competitive programming and algorithmic challenges. Its parallel sub-task coordination also makes it capable of breaking down complex, multi-step engineering problems — useful for things like designing system architectures or reasoning through a refactor that touches many files. If your primary use case involves algorithm design, technical interviews, or math-heavy engineering problems, Kimi's strong AIME 2025 score (96.1%) reflects deeper quantitative reasoning that can translate well to performance-critical code.

The practical disadvantage for Kimi is the thinner toolset. No code execution, no file uploads, no web search — this pushes the developer to do more copy-paste legwork and limits how deeply Kimi can engage with an actual project. For teams building production software with real codebases, that friction adds up quickly.

On cost, Kimi has a clear edge for API usage: roughly $0.60 per million input tokens versus ChatGPT's $2.50. For developers building code-generation pipelines or automating tasks at scale, Kimi offers competitive model performance at a fraction of the price.

Recommendation: For individual developers or teams wanting an all-in-one coding assistant with integrated execution, search, and file handling, ChatGPT is the stronger daily driver. For cost-conscious teams running coding tasks via API, or for competitive programming and algorithmic work where raw reasoning matters most, Kimi is a compelling and underrated choice.

Frequently Asked Questions

Other Topics for ChatGPT vs Kimi

Coding Comparisons for Other Models

Try coding tasks with ChatGPT and Kimi

Compare in Multichat — free

Join 10,000+ professionals who use Multichat