Kimi Agent SDKvsStirrup
Generated from the two spec rows. Green marks the better value where a spec has a clear direction. Everything else is just different.
Kimi Agent SDK
Moonshot AI · Agent framework
OSSMCP
Panel
6.91 spec wins
- Reliability
- 7.8
- Usefulness
- 7.0
- Cost
- 6.2
- Longevity
- 6.7
“One example runs the same agent across three rival sandbox vendors, which is a bake-off shipped as documentation.”
Stirrup
Artificial Analysis · Agent framework
OSSMCP
Panel
6.85 spec wins
- Reliability
- 6.7
- Usefulness
- 6.5
- Cost
- 8.2
- Longevity
- 6.0
“The Python framework has a TypeScript twin called StirrupJS, because no agent library is allowed to exist in only one language.”
Spec by spec
| Spec | Kimi Agent SDK | Stirrup |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture | ||
| Category | Agent framework | Agent framework |
| Runs | local, sandbox | local, sandbox |
| Platforms | macos, linux, windows | macos, linux, windows |
| Context window | not documented | not documented |
| Protocols | ||
| MCP client | Yes | Yes |
| MCP server | No | No |
| Capabilities | ||
| Runs terminal commands | YesThrough the Kimi CLI's own tools, which the SDK reuses rather than reimplements. | Yes |
| Multi-file edits | YesPerformed by the Kimi CLI execution engine the SDK drives. | Yes |
| Git operations | No | No |
| Browser control | No | YesA browser extra adds online search and web-page fetching, not general browser automation. |
| Sandboxed execution | YesThe KAOS example runs the same agent tools against BoxLite, E2B or Sprites sandbox backends. | YesCode execution runs locally, in Docker or in an E2B sandbox, selected through optional install extras. |
| Multi-agent orchestration | No | No |
| Headless / CI mode | Yes | No |
| Models | ||
| Backbone | Kimi | any OpenAI-compatible API, LiteLLM, OpenRouter |
| Bring your own model | No | Yes |
| Local models | No | YesAny OpenAI-compatible base URL is supported, and LiteLLM adds routing to local runtimes. |
| Cost | ||
| Pricing model | byok | byok |
| Starts at | $0/mo | $0/mo |
| Free tier | No | Yes |
| Bring your own key | Yes | Yes |
| Openness | ||
| Open source | Yes | Yes |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| GitHub stars | 576 | 642 |
Which one would each critic pick
| Critic | Kimi Agent SDK | Stirrup | Pick |
|---|---|---|---|
| El Juez | — | — | not enough reviews |
| El Amigo | 7.0 | 7.3 | Stirrup — Pick it when you want an agent that stops and asks rather than guessing; pick a heavier framework if you want the workflow decided for you in advance. |
| El Crítico | 6.5 | 6.8 | Stirrup — Code execution runs locally by default, with Docker and E2B available through optional install extras, so the safe modes are the ones you have to remember to choose. |
| El Profesor | 7.3 | 6.5 | Kimi Agent SDK — Permission requests are answered in code rather than at a prompt, and tool calls and approvals are surfaced in the stream as they happen. |
| La Inversora | 7.0 | 6.8 | Kimi Agent SDK — 575 stars and a first-party SDK from a model vendor with no free tier: this is not a product, it is a demand-generation instrument, and it is a good one. |
| La Jefa | 7.0 | 5.8 | Kimi Agent SDK — Go, Node and Python clients and a runtime that genuinely runs headless: the rare row where the integration work lands in a pipeline instead of on a desk. |
| El Hacker | 6.8 | 8.0 | Stirrup — MIT on PyPI, an MCP client, and LiteLLM or any OpenAI-compatible base URL, so pointing it at the model server on my own network is a configuration line. |
Picks are derived from each critic's own scores. Humans vote on matchups on the duels page.