Skip to main content

Kimi K3.1 model by Moonshot AI

Kimi K3.1 Pro

Moonshot AI's first K3.1 release, a post-trained Kimi K3 with a 1M-token context window and a Highspeed variant on the Kimi API. Weights under the Kimi K3.1 Pro License.

Official page

Where it sits in Moonshot AI's lineup

  1. Kimi K3.1Moonshot AI's Kimi family for reasoning, coding, and long-context work.This model
  2. KimiMoonshot AI's earlier Kimi K2 and K3 models for coding, agents and long-context work.Kimi K3
Stack role
Foundation Model / Reasoning Engine
Offered in
1 product
Made by
Moonshot AI
Family
Kimi K3.1, version 3.1
Released
Oct 23, 2026 Current
In its family
The only Kimi K3.1 release we track.

Strengths and weaknesses

Compare with other models Up to 3 beside Kimi K3.1 Pro

  • Kimi K3.1 Pro

Suggested comparisons

The models a buyer weighs against Kimi K3.1 Pro, picked on list price and on Artificial Analysis's Intelligence Index of overall quality. Add one to draw it beside Kimi K3.1 Pro.

Kimi K3.1 ProMoonshot AIThis page, always on the chart

Among the 40 current releases on this chart, Kimi K3.1 Pro ranks second of 38 on Tool use, second of 38 on Long context and third of 31 on Agentic coding. On Computer use, Moonshot AI's own figures on OSWorld 2.1 put Kimi K3.1 Pro 10.3 points above DeepSeek V4.1 Flash. Science is Moonshot AI's own figure on GPQA Diamond, marked on the chart. Math, Answers in full and Instruction following: not yet published by Moonshot AI or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026.

Each axis is one public benchmark at one setting, on its own fixed 0 to 100 scale, so adding a model never moves another. A dotted bridge crosses a missing result, which is never a zero. A hollow mark is a result from another source: the maker's own figure or another lab's run, where the benchmark's usual source has not tested the model yet. The readout names it.

On the chart

  • Kimi K3.1 ProThis pageResults on 9 of 12 axes$2 / $1041 tokens/sFirst token in 2.8 s

Prices and speeds read between Oct 27, 2026 and Oct 28, 2026.

Kimi K3.1 Pro on each axis9 of 12 with a result

Beside the benchmarks

Cost, speed, capacity, quality and accuracy for Kimi K3.1 Pro, with where each figure sits among the 40 models GILD tracks. These measures stand beside the chart and never feed it.

Cost

$2.11per task

Cost per task. One Intelligence Index task at list price, every token counted.

Speed

44tokens a second

Output speed. How fast it writes once the answer starts.

First token
3.0 s
Whole answer
59 s

Capacity

1Mtokens

Context window. The most one request can hold, as the maker states it.

Max output
944K
Reads
Text, Images

Quality

55.1of 100

Intelligence Index. One composite score across independent evaluations.

GDPval knowledge work
1,846 Elo
Terminal-Bench 4.0
67.2%

Hallucination

37.3%wrong when it should say “I don’t know”

Hallucination rate. Of the questions it can't get right, how often it answers anyway. Lower is better.

Knowledge accuracy
48.9%

Where you can get it

3of 19 routes

Routes offering it. Of the clouds, gateways and coding products GILD tracks, those offering it today.

Open weights
Yes
Licence
Kimi K3.1 Pro License
Every route and price

Figures from Artificial Analysis, OpenRouter, GILD's route matrix and Moonshot AI, read Oct 27 to Nov 4, 2026. Each measure's definition and source open under . Not yet published for Kimi K3.1 Pro: Cached input and Epoch Capabilities Index.

Every value with its benchmark, run and source

Kimi K3.1 Pro's result on each axis, with the benchmark, the setting and run, who reported it, the source and the date
AxisBenchmark and settingKimi K3.1 ProRunSourceDate
Agentic codingTerminal-Bench 4.0Pass@1 averaged over 3 runs, mini-swe-agent harness63.6%Kimi K3.1 ProEffort: not published. Harness: mini-swe-agent.Vals.aiOct 24, 2026
CodeSciCodeSubproblem accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run60.8%Kimi K3.1 ProEffort: default. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
MathFrontierMath Tiers 1-3Accuracy, pass@1, highest effort runNot yet published by Moonshot AI or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026
ScienceGPQA DiamondAccuracy, pass@1, highest effort run. Moonshot AI's own figure, at its highest reasoning setting with no tools. No independent lab has run it yet. Epoch AI scores the earlier Kimi K3 at 93.1.94.2%Kimi K3.1 Pro (max)Effort: max. Harness: none.Moonshot AIReported by Moonshot AIOct 23, 2026
Hard reasoningHumanity's Last ExamAccuracy, text-only questions, no tools52.5%Kimi K3.1 ProEffort: default. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
Tool useAutomationBench-AAScore, Artificial Analysis run73.3%Kimi K3.1 ProEffort: default. Harness: Artificial Analysis AutomationBench harness.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
Computer useOSWorld 2.1Metric and task set not named by Moonshot, v2.1 release. Moonshot AI's own run at max effort in its Kimi Agent harness. Moonshot does not name the metric or task set; its other rows reprint Anthropic's full-set partial scores.Stands in for OSWorld 2.1, partial score, full 108-task set, v2.1 release, which has no run of Kimi K3.1 Pro yet.79.6%Kimi K3.1 Pro (max)Effort: max. Harness: Kimi Agent harness.Moonshot AIReported by Moonshot AIOct 23, 2026
Long contextAA-LCR v1.1Accuracy, Artificial Analysis run86.3%Kimi K3.1 ProEffort: default. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
MultimodalMMMU-ProOverall accuracy, no tools83.9%Kimi K3.1 ProEffort: default. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
FactualityAA-Omniscience AccuracyAccuracy, Artificial Analysis run48.9%Hallucination rate 37.3% in the same run (lower is better)Kimi K3.1 ProEffort: default. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
Answers in fullSpeechMap% Complete over 2,120 contested requests, reasoning-on entryNot yet published by Moonshot AI or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026
Instruction followingMultiChallengeAccuracy, Scale AI runNot yet published by Moonshot AI or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026

Price and speed

  • Kimi K3.1 Pro lists at $2 per million input tokens and $10 per million output tokens. Moonshot AI pricing, Oct 27, 2026.
  • Kimi K3.1 Pro writes 41.4 output tokens per second on Kimi's API, and its first token arrives 2.8 s after the request. Artificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026.
  • Fastest on the chart is the shortest time to a 500-token answer: time to first token plus 500 tokens at the median output speed.

Every model with a result, axis by axis

57 models. A maker's own figure and another lab's run are marked with their benchmark; a missing result reads "Not yet published", never zero.

The result of every model GILD has benchmark results for, on each of the 12 axes. A vendor-reported value is marked. A model's run notes open under its row from its name, each with the axes it covers.
ModelAgentic codingCodeMathScienceHard reasoningTool useComputer useLong contextMultimodalFactualityAnswers in fullInstructions
Kimi K3.1 Pro63.6%60.8%Not yet published94.2%Reported by Moonshot AI52.5%73.3%79.6%Reported by Moonshot AIOSWorld 2.186.3%83.9%48.9%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Kimi K317.2%59.5%72.2%93.1%46.9%58.3%Not yet published88.7%80.5%50.6%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified65.9%Not yet published
Kimi K2.7 Code1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.047.8%54%87.9%35%24.5%Not yet published79.3%Not yet published36.5%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet published63.1%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Claude Haiku 5.536.4%55%75.1%89.6%44.4%35.4%72.4%Reported by AnthropicOSWorld 2.182.7%Not yet published34.7%78.8%67.7%
Claude Sonnet 5.564.1%61%88.8%95.6%55%71.8%80.1%Reported by Anthropic82.7%Not yet published51.5%81.6%Not yet published
Claude Opus 5.565.2%66.9%91.2%90.6%61.4%69.5%81.8%Reported by Anthropic84.7%87.7%65.5%82.8%Not yet published
Claude Fable 5.158.1%63.1%90.2%93.4%Run by Vals.ai59.1%59.4%80.7%Reported by Anthropic85.3%86.3%Run by Moonshot AI68.4%72.4%Not yet published
Claude Opus 553.5%56.4%85.6%93.9%54.9%56.6%77.7%79.3%84.7%60.9%73.7%Not yet published
Claude Sonnet 510.6%54.3%65.6%80.3%41.3%36.5%57%Reported by Anthropic82%77.3%40.1%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Claude Fable 541.4%61%87%85.9%55.5%54.1%Not yet published82.3%Not yet published65.4%64.8%63.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Claude Opus 4.823.2%54.4%80%91%48.7%45.6%54.8%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.077.7%Not yet published48.8%67.4%62.2%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Claude Opus 4.7Not yet published54.5%70.2%86.4%42.3%Not yet published48.9%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.078.7%78.8%48.9%70.2%58.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Claude Sonnet 4.63%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.050.1%71.1%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202578.8%33.6%20.1%41.5%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.080%73.3%40.9%35.8%56.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Claude Opus 4.6Not yet publishedNot yet published66%88.4%39.9%Not yet publishedNot yet published78%75.4%47%59.9%37.2%
Claude Opus 4.5Not yet publishedNot yet published34.4%86%30.1%Not yet publishedNot yet published77.3%74%46.6%57.5%59%
Claude Haiku 4.5Not yet published42.2%66.7%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202571.2%10.4%3.2%Not yet published74.3%58.6%18%24.7%50.5%
Claude Sonnet 4.5Not yet published45.7%23.9%82.3%17.8%14.1%Not yet published72.3%68.7%32.9%31.4%55.3%
GPT-6.1 Terra49.5%55.1%90.9%94.3%46.2%60.2%74.2%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.182.7%84.7%47.6%Not yet published74.2%
GPT-6.1 Sol55.1%54.2%93.7%95.4%52.9%64.9%78%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.183%86%61.8%69.5%82%
GPT-6 Luna13.6%54.6%78.9%90.5%38.5%53.2%48.9%Run by AnthropicOSWorld 2.183.3%79.7%39.6%63.4%Not yet published
GPT-6 Astra59.6%56.5%93.7%95.8%54.7%68.5%75.8%Run by Meta80.7%86.9%61.6%68.2%Not yet published
GPT-5.6 Sol37.9%57.1%89.1%93.5%49.5%60.1%62.7%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.084%83.4%69.7%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet published72.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
GPT-5.6 Terra22.7%55%86%93.3%42.9%59.6%Not yet published83%80.7%42.3%Not yet published71.2%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
GPT-5.6 Luna11.6%53.6%82.1%91.6%39.5%50.2%Not yet published83.7%78.6%41%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet publishedNot yet published
GPT-5.514.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.055.8%85.3%93.5%Run by Artificial Analysis45.8%47.3%49.5%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.084.3%79.9%63%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet published75.9%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
GPT-5.4Not yet publishedNot yet published78.6%93.3%43.7%Not yet publishedNot yet published82%78.4%Not yet publishedNot yet published73.9%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
gpt-oss-120b14.2%Run by Terminal-Bench (via Epoch AI)Terminal-Bench 2.034%88.9%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202575.8%19.6%0.2%Not yet published52%Not yet published16.8%Reported by OpenAISimpleQA36.3%45.3%
GPT-6 Sol44.4%57.6%89.8%94.3%47.9%61.6%64.4%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.083.7%82.9%54.5%64%Not yet published
GPT-5.3-CodexNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet published91.5%Run by Artificial Analysis42.5%Not yet publishedNot yet published83.3%78.5%Not yet publishedNot yet published75.4%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Gemini 4 Argon57.6%61.8%86%96.4%57.1%77.5%69.2%Reported by GoogleOSWorld 2.079.7%Not yet published48.3%87%78.7%
Gemini 3.8 Flash19.7%56.6%68.4%95.4%47.8%59.9%59%Reported by GoogleOSWorld 2.081.3%85.6%50.5%86.1%Not yet published
Gemma 4 31BNot yet published45.5%Not yet published85.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond23.6%4.9%Not yet published69.7%73.4%10.4%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified82.3%75.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview2.5%58.7%59.6%94.4%47%35.4%Not yet published82%82.4%54.9%59.9%71.4%
Gemini 3.6 Flash7.1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.053.4%58.9%94.1%40.8%53%83%Reported by GoogleOSWorld-Verified80%83.2%66.2%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified87.2%Not yet published
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash31.8%55.9%71.2%93.2%43.3%66.6%69.3%Run by Moonshot AIOSWorld 2.182.7%80.6%39.6%Not yet published74.9%
DeepSeek V4 Pro14.1%51%64.6%91.7%41%56.7%Not yet published80.3%Not yet published45.2%72%Not yet published
Mistral Large 424.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0Not yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet published57.8%Not yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet published26%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Mistral Medium 3.50%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.040.2%Not yet published74.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond13.8%6.3%Not yet published69.3%64.9%23%70.5%68.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Grok 4.728.8%57.4%53%92.7%43.1%65.6%Not yet published76.7%Not yet published42.7%64.1%Not yet published
Grok 4.617.2%56.5%66%93.2%42.9%66.7%Not yet published80.3%Not yet published48.9%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified83.6%Not yet published
Grok 4.58.6%55%57.2%93.4%42.7%57.9%Not yet published79.3%80.4%48.3%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified93.1%Not yet published
MiniMax M3.1 Flash25.3%53.4%Not yet publishedNot yet published48%72.5%61.7%Reported by MiniMaxOSWorld 2.079.7%79.1%45.1%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Mercury 33%Not yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet published
GLM-5.3-Flash37.4%51.6%55.8%90.2%39.9%60.4%59.1%Reported by Z.aiOSWorld 2.080%86%Run by Vals.aiMMMU-Pro28.2%65.4%Not yet published
GLM-5.338.9%59%68.8%90.9%42.3%62.2%Not yet published79.7%Not yet published32.3%71.5%Not yet published
GLM-5.21%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.051.2%59.2%Not yet published41.1%28.4%Not yet published78.3%Not yet published34.2%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet published73.3%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Muse Spark Open6.6%58.4%69.8%88.6%43.9%49.7%80.4%Reported by MetaOSWorld-Verified78.3%80.9%42%Not yet published74.2%
Muse Wonder49.5%60.3%82.1%Not yet published50.1%68.1%72.6%Reported by Meta80.7%Not yet published38%42.7%Not yet published
Muse Spark 1.310.6%58.8%74%93.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond48.7%57.9%69.6%83%82%38%25.8%Not yet published
Llama 4 ScoutNot yet published21.3%7.8%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202551.8%3.8%0.2%Not yet published27.7%52.9%Not yet published70.1%39.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Llama 4 MaverickNot yet published31.7%20.6%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202567%4.9%0.2%Not yet published50%62.1%Not yet published58.3%43%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Qwen3.8 27B5.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.046.6%Not yet published90.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond33.9%48.2%84.3%Reported by AlibabaOSWorld-Verified82%76.3%17.3%Not yet published79.5%Reported by AlibabaIFBench
Qwen3.8 Max38.9%52.1%65.6%92.3%43.1%56.2%Not yet published80.3%82.8%29.5%65.3%Not yet published
MiMo-V2.6-Pro31.3%60.9%Not yet publishedNot yet published49.4%58.6%82%Reported by XiaomiOSWorld-Verified86.3%Not yet published34.8%66.5%Not yet published
MiMo-V2.6-Flash24.2%51.3%Not yet publishedNot yet published35.1%64.1%80.8%Reported by XiaomiOSWorld-Verified74.3%73.1%27.2%66.9%Not yet published
Ling 3.1 Flash32.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.056.8%Not yet publishedNot yet published43.5%67.5%Not yet published82.3%Not yet published26.5%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Step 5 Preview31.8%58.9%Not yet published93.5%Reported by StepFunGPQA Diamond46.5%51%Not yet published88.3%76.4%36.4%59.7%Not yet published

Agentic codingTerminal-Bench 4.0

  1. Claude Opus 5.565.2%
  2. Claude Sonnet 5.564.1%
  3. Kimi K3.1 Pro63.6%
  4. GPT-6 Astra59.6%
  5. Claude Fable 5.158.1%
  6. Gemini 4 Argon57.6%
  7. GPT-6.1 Sol55.1%
  8. Claude Opus 553.5%
  9. GPT-6.1 Terra49.5%
  10. Muse Wonder49.5%
  11. GPT-6 Sol44.4%
  12. Claude Fable 541.4%
  13. GLM-5.338.9%
  14. Qwen3.8 Max38.9%
  15. GPT-5.6 Sol37.9%
  16. GLM-5.3-Flash37.4%
  17. Claude Haiku 5.536.4%
  18. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash31.8%
  19. Step 5 Preview31.8%
  20. MiMo-V2.6-Pro31.3%
  21. Grok 4.728.8%
  22. MiniMax M3.1 Flash25.3%
  23. MiMo-V2.6-Flash24.2%
  24. Claude Opus 4.823.2%
  25. GPT-5.6 Terra22.7%
  26. Gemini 3.8 Flash19.7%
  27. Kimi K317.2%
  28. Grok 4.617.2%
  29. DeepSeek V4 Pro14.1%
  30. GPT-6 Luna13.6%
  31. GPT-5.6 Luna11.6%
  32. Claude Sonnet 510.6%
  33. Muse Spark 1.310.6%
  34. Grok 4.58.6%
  35. Muse Spark Open6.6%
  36. Mercury 33%
  37. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview2.5%
  38. Ling 3.1 Flash32.8%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  39. Mistral Large 424.7%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  40. GPT-5.514.6%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  41. gpt-oss-120b14.2%Terminal-Bench's run, Terminal-Bench 2.0
  42. Gemini 3.6 Flash7.1%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  43. Qwen3.8 27B5.6%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  44. Claude Sonnet 4.63%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  45. Kimi K2.7 Code1%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  46. GLM-5.21%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  47. Mistral Medium 3.50%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0

The other models in the grid have no result on Terminal-Bench 4.0 yet.

CodeSciCode

  1. Claude Opus 5.566.9%
  2. Claude Fable 5.163.1%
  3. Gemini 4 Argon61.8%
  4. Claude Sonnet 5.561%
  5. Claude Fable 561%
  6. MiMo-V2.6-Pro60.9%
  7. Kimi K3.1 Pro60.8%
  8. Muse Wonder60.3%
  9. Kimi K359.5%
  10. GLM-5.359%
  11. Step 5 Preview58.9%
  12. Muse Spark 1.358.8%
  13. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview58.7%
  14. Muse Spark Open58.4%
  15. GPT-6 Sol57.6%
  16. Grok 4.757.4%
  17. GPT-5.6 Sol57.1%
  18. Ling 3.1 Flash56.8%
  19. Gemini 3.8 Flash56.6%
  20. GPT-6 Astra56.5%
  21. Grok 4.656.5%
  22. Claude Opus 556.4%
  23. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash55.9%
  24. GPT-5.555.8%
  25. GPT-6.1 Terra55.1%
  26. Claude Haiku 5.555%
  27. GPT-5.6 Terra55%
  28. Grok 4.555%
  29. GPT-6 Luna54.6%
  30. Claude Opus 4.754.5%
  31. Claude Opus 4.854.4%
  32. Claude Sonnet 554.3%
  33. GPT-6.1 Sol54.2%
  34. GPT-5.6 Luna53.6%
  35. Gemini 3.6 Flash53.4%
  36. MiniMax M3.1 Flash53.4%
  37. Qwen3.8 Max52.1%
  38. GLM-5.3-Flash51.6%
  39. MiMo-V2.6-Flash51.3%
  40. GLM-5.251.2%
  41. DeepSeek V4 Pro51%
  42. Claude Sonnet 4.650.1%
  43. Kimi K2.7 Code47.8%
  44. Qwen3.8 27B46.6%
  45. Claude Sonnet 4.545.7%
  46. Gemma 4 31B45.5%
  47. Claude Haiku 4.542.2%
  48. Mistral Medium 3.540.2%
  49. gpt-oss-120b34%
  50. Llama 4 Maverick31.7%
  51. Llama 4 Scout21.3%

The other models in the grid have no result on SciCode yet.

MathFrontierMath Tiers 1-3

  1. GPT-6.1 Sol93.7%
  2. GPT-6 Astra93.7%
  3. Claude Opus 5.591.2%
  4. GPT-6.1 Terra90.9%
  5. Claude Fable 5.190.2%
  6. GPT-6 Sol89.8%
  7. GPT-5.6 Sol89.1%
  8. Claude Sonnet 5.588.8%
  9. Claude Fable 587%
  10. GPT-5.6 Terra86%
  11. Gemini 4 Argon86%
  12. Claude Opus 585.6%
  13. GPT-5.585.3%
  14. GPT-5.6 Luna82.1%
  15. Muse Wonder82.1%
  16. Claude Opus 4.880%
  17. GPT-6 Luna78.9%
  18. GPT-5.478.6%
  19. Claude Haiku 5.575.1%
  20. Muse Spark 1.374%
  21. Kimi K372.2%
  22. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash71.2%
  23. Claude Opus 4.770.2%
  24. Muse Spark Open69.8%
  25. GLM-5.368.8%
  26. Gemini 3.8 Flash68.4%
  27. Claude Opus 4.666%
  28. Grok 4.666%
  29. Claude Sonnet 565.6%
  30. Qwen3.8 Max65.6%
  31. DeepSeek V4 Pro64.6%
  32. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview59.6%
  33. GLM-5.259.2%
  34. Gemini 3.6 Flash58.9%
  35. Grok 4.557.2%
  36. GLM-5.3-Flash55.8%
  37. Kimi K2.7 Code54%
  38. Grok 4.753%
  39. Claude Opus 4.534.4%
  40. Claude Sonnet 4.523.9%
  41. gpt-oss-120b88.9%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
  42. Claude Sonnet 4.671.1%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
  43. Claude Haiku 4.566.7%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
  44. Llama 4 Maverick20.6%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
  45. Llama 4 Scout7.8%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025

The other models in the grid have no result on FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 yet.

ScienceGPQA Diamond

  1. Gemini 4 Argon96.4%
  2. GPT-6 Astra95.8%
  3. Claude Sonnet 5.595.6%
  4. GPT-6.1 Sol95.4%
  5. Gemini 3.8 Flash95.4%
  6. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview94.4%
  7. GPT-6.1 Terra94.3%
  8. GPT-6 Sol94.3%
  9. Gemini 3.6 Flash94.1%
  10. Claude Opus 593.9%
  11. GPT-5.6 Sol93.5%
  12. Grok 4.593.4%
  13. GPT-5.6 Terra93.3%
  14. GPT-5.493.3%
  15. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash93.2%
  16. Grok 4.693.2%
  17. Kimi K393.1%
  18. Grok 4.792.7%
  19. Qwen3.8 Max92.3%
  20. DeepSeek V4 Pro91.7%
  21. GPT-5.6 Luna91.6%
  22. Claude Opus 4.891%
  23. GLM-5.390.9%
  24. Claude Opus 5.590.6%
  25. GPT-6 Luna90.5%
  26. GLM-5.3-Flash90.2%
  27. Claude Haiku 5.589.6%
  28. Muse Spark Open88.6%
  29. Claude Opus 4.688.4%
  30. Kimi K2.7 Code87.9%
  31. Claude Opus 4.786.4%
  32. Claude Opus 4.586%
  33. Claude Fable 585.9%
  34. Claude Sonnet 4.582.3%
  35. Claude Sonnet 580.3%
  36. Claude Sonnet 4.678.8%
  37. gpt-oss-120b75.8%
  38. Claude Haiku 4.571.2%
  39. Llama 4 Maverick67%
  40. Llama 4 Scout51.8%
  41. Kimi K3.1 Pro94.2%Moonshot AI's own figure
  42. GPT-5.593.5%Artificial Analysis's run
  43. Muse Spark 1.393.5%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
  44. Step 5 Preview93.5%StepFun's own figure, GPQA Diamond
  45. Claude Fable 5.193.4%Vals.ai's run
  46. GPT-5.3-Codex91.5%Artificial Analysis's run
  47. Qwen3.8 27B90.5%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
  48. Gemma 4 31B85.7%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
  49. Mistral Medium 3.574.8%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond

The other models in the grid have no result on GPQA Diamond yet.

Hard reasoningHumanity's Last Exam

  1. Claude Opus 5.561.4%
  2. Claude Fable 5.159.1%
  3. Gemini 4 Argon57.1%
  4. Claude Fable 555.5%
  5. Claude Sonnet 5.555%
  6. Claude Opus 554.9%
  7. GPT-6 Astra54.7%
  8. GPT-6.1 Sol52.9%
  9. Kimi K3.1 Pro52.5%
  10. Muse Wonder50.1%
  11. GPT-5.6 Sol49.5%
  12. MiMo-V2.6-Pro49.4%
  13. Claude Opus 4.848.7%
  14. Muse Spark 1.348.7%
  15. MiniMax M3.1 Flash48%
  16. GPT-6 Sol47.9%
  17. Gemini 3.8 Flash47.8%
  18. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview47%
  19. Kimi K346.9%
  20. Step 5 Preview46.5%
  21. GPT-6.1 Terra46.2%
  22. GPT-5.545.8%
  23. Claude Haiku 5.544.4%
  24. Muse Spark Open43.9%
  25. GPT-5.443.7%
  26. Ling 3.1 Flash43.5%
  27. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash43.3%
  28. Grok 4.743.1%
  29. Qwen3.8 Max43.1%
  30. GPT-5.6 Terra42.9%
  31. Grok 4.642.9%
  32. Grok 4.542.7%
  33. GPT-5.3-Codex42.5%
  34. Claude Opus 4.742.3%
  35. GLM-5.342.3%
  36. Claude Sonnet 541.3%
  37. GLM-5.241.1%
  38. DeepSeek V4 Pro41%
  39. Gemini 3.6 Flash40.8%
  40. Claude Opus 4.639.9%
  41. GLM-5.3-Flash39.9%
  42. GPT-5.6 Luna39.5%
  43. GPT-6 Luna38.5%
  44. MiMo-V2.6-Flash35.1%
  45. Kimi K2.7 Code35%
  46. Qwen3.8 27B33.9%
  47. Claude Sonnet 4.633.6%
  48. Claude Opus 4.530.1%
  49. Gemma 4 31B23.6%
  50. gpt-oss-120b19.6%
  51. Claude Sonnet 4.517.8%
  52. Mistral Medium 3.513.8%
  53. Claude Haiku 4.510.4%
  54. Llama 4 Maverick4.9%
  55. Llama 4 Scout3.8%

The other models in the grid have no result on Humanity's Last Exam yet.

Tool useAutomationBench-AA

  1. Gemini 4 Argon77.5%
  2. Kimi K3.1 Pro73.3%
  3. MiniMax M3.1 Flash72.5%
  4. Claude Sonnet 5.571.8%
  5. Claude Opus 5.569.5%
  6. GPT-6 Astra68.5%
  7. Muse Wonder68.1%
  8. Ling 3.1 Flash67.5%
  9. Grok 4.666.7%
  10. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash66.6%
  11. Grok 4.765.6%
  12. GPT-6.1 Sol64.9%
  13. MiMo-V2.6-Flash64.1%
  14. GLM-5.362.2%
  15. GPT-6 Sol61.6%
  16. GLM-5.3-Flash60.4%
  17. GPT-6.1 Terra60.2%
  18. GPT-5.6 Sol60.1%
  19. Gemini 3.8 Flash59.9%
  20. GPT-5.6 Terra59.6%
  21. Claude Fable 5.159.4%
  22. MiMo-V2.6-Pro58.6%
  23. Kimi K358.3%
  24. Grok 4.557.9%
  25. Muse Spark 1.357.9%
  26. Mistral Large 457.8%
  27. DeepSeek V4 Pro56.7%
  28. Claude Opus 556.6%
  29. Qwen3.8 Max56.2%
  30. Claude Fable 554.1%
  31. GPT-6 Luna53.2%
  32. Gemini 3.6 Flash53%
  33. Step 5 Preview51%
  34. GPT-5.6 Luna50.2%
  35. Muse Spark Open49.7%
  36. Qwen3.8 27B48.2%
  37. GPT-5.547.3%
  38. Claude Opus 4.845.6%
  39. Claude Sonnet 536.5%
  40. Claude Haiku 5.535.4%
  41. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview35.4%
  42. GLM-5.228.4%
  43. Kimi K2.7 Code24.5%
  44. Claude Sonnet 4.620.1%
  45. Claude Sonnet 4.514.1%
  46. Mistral Medium 3.56.3%
  47. Gemma 4 31B4.9%
  48. Claude Haiku 4.53.2%
  49. gpt-oss-120b0.2%
  50. Llama 4 Scout0.2%
  51. Llama 4 Maverick0.2%

The other models in the grid have no result on AutomationBench-AA yet.

Computer useOSWorld 2.1

  1. Claude Opus 577.7%
  2. Muse Spark 1.369.6%
  3. Qwen3.8 27B84.3%Alibaba's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  4. Gemini 3.6 Flash83%Google's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  5. MiMo-V2.6-Pro82%Xiaomi's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  6. Claude Opus 5.581.8%Anthropic's own figure
  7. MiMo-V2.6-Flash80.8%Xiaomi's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  8. Claude Fable 5.180.7%Anthropic's own figure
  9. Muse Spark Open80.4%Meta's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  10. Claude Sonnet 5.580.1%Anthropic's own figure
  11. Kimi K3.1 Pro79.6%Moonshot AI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
  12. GPT-6.1 Sol78%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
  13. GPT-6 Astra75.8%Meta's run
  14. GPT-6.1 Terra74.2%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
  15. Muse Wonder72.6%Meta's own figure
  16. Claude Haiku 5.572.4%Anthropic's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
  17. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash69.3%Moonshot AI's run, OSWorld 2.1
  18. Gemini 4 Argon69.2%Google's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  19. GPT-6 Sol64.4%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  20. GPT-5.6 Sol62.7%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
  21. MiniMax M3.1 Flash61.7%MiniMax's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  22. GLM-5.3-Flash59.1%Z.ai's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  23. Gemini 3.8 Flash59%Google's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  24. Claude Sonnet 557%Anthropic's own figure
  25. Claude Opus 4.854.8%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
  26. GPT-5.549.5%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
  27. Claude Opus 4.748.9%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
  28. GPT-6 Luna48.9%Anthropic's run, OSWorld 2.1
  29. Claude Sonnet 4.641.5%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0

The other models in the grid have no result on OSWorld 2.1 yet.

Long contextAA-LCR v1.1

  1. Kimi K388.7%
  2. Step 5 Preview88.3%
  3. Kimi K3.1 Pro86.3%
  4. MiMo-V2.6-Pro86.3%
  5. Claude Fable 5.185.3%
  6. Claude Opus 5.584.7%
  7. GPT-5.584.3%
  8. GPT-5.6 Sol84%
  9. GPT-5.6 Luna83.7%
  10. GPT-6 Sol83.7%
  11. GPT-6 Luna83.3%
  12. GPT-5.3-Codex83.3%
  13. GPT-6.1 Sol83%
  14. GPT-5.6 Terra83%
  15. Muse Spark 1.383%
  16. Claude Haiku 5.582.7%
  17. Claude Sonnet 5.582.7%
  18. GPT-6.1 Terra82.7%
  19. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash82.7%
  20. Claude Fable 582.3%
  21. Ling 3.1 Flash82.3%
  22. Claude Sonnet 582%
  23. GPT-5.482%
  24. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview82%
  25. Qwen3.8 27B82%
  26. Gemini 3.8 Flash81.3%
  27. GPT-6 Astra80.7%
  28. Muse Wonder80.7%
  29. DeepSeek V4 Pro80.3%
  30. Grok 4.680.3%
  31. Qwen3.8 Max80.3%
  32. Claude Sonnet 4.680%
  33. Gemini 3.6 Flash80%
  34. GLM-5.3-Flash80%
  35. Gemini 4 Argon79.7%
  36. MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.7%
  37. GLM-5.379.7%
  38. Kimi K2.7 Code79.3%
  39. Claude Opus 579.3%
  40. Grok 4.579.3%
  41. Claude Opus 4.778.7%
  42. GLM-5.278.3%
  43. Muse Spark Open78.3%
  44. Claude Opus 4.678%
  45. Claude Opus 4.877.7%
  46. Claude Opus 4.577.3%
  47. Grok 4.776.7%
  48. Claude Haiku 4.574.3%
  49. MiMo-V2.6-Flash74.3%
  50. Claude Sonnet 4.572.3%
  51. Gemma 4 31B69.7%
  52. Mistral Medium 3.569.3%
  53. gpt-oss-120b52%
  54. Llama 4 Maverick50%
  55. Llama 4 Scout27.7%

The other models in the grid have no result on AA-LCR v1.1 yet.

MultimodalMMMU-Pro

  1. Claude Opus 5.587.7%
  2. GPT-6 Astra86.9%
  3. GPT-6.1 Sol86%
  4. Gemini 3.8 Flash85.6%
  5. Claude Opus 584.7%
  6. GPT-6.1 Terra84.7%
  7. Kimi K3.1 Pro83.9%
  8. GPT-5.6 Sol83.4%
  9. Gemini 3.6 Flash83.2%
  10. GPT-6 Sol82.9%
  11. Qwen3.8 Max82.8%
  12. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview82.4%
  13. Muse Spark 1.382%
  14. Muse Spark Open80.9%
  15. GPT-5.6 Terra80.7%
  16. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash80.6%
  17. Kimi K380.5%
  18. Grok 4.580.4%
  19. GPT-5.579.9%
  20. GPT-6 Luna79.7%
  21. MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.1%
  22. Claude Opus 4.778.8%
  23. GPT-5.6 Luna78.6%
  24. GPT-5.3-Codex78.5%
  25. GPT-5.478.4%
  26. Claude Sonnet 577.3%
  27. Step 5 Preview76.4%
  28. Qwen3.8 27B76.3%
  29. Claude Opus 4.675.4%
  30. Claude Opus 4.574%
  31. Gemma 4 31B73.4%
  32. Claude Sonnet 4.673.3%
  33. MiMo-V2.6-Flash73.1%
  34. Claude Sonnet 4.568.7%
  35. Mistral Medium 3.564.9%
  36. Llama 4 Maverick62.1%
  37. Claude Haiku 4.558.6%
  38. Llama 4 Scout52.9%
  39. Claude Fable 5.186.3%Moonshot AI's run
  40. GLM-5.3-Flash86%Vals.ai's run, MMMU-Pro

The other models in the grid have no result on MMMU-Pro yet.

FactualityAA-Omniscience Accuracy

  1. Claude Fable 5.168.4%
  2. Claude Opus 5.565.5%
  3. Claude Fable 565.4%
  4. GPT-6.1 Sol61.8%
  5. GPT-6 Astra61.6%
  6. Claude Opus 560.9%
  7. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview54.9%
  8. GPT-6 Sol54.5%
  9. Claude Sonnet 5.551.5%
  10. Gemini 3.8 Flash50.5%
  11. Kimi K3.1 Pro48.9%
  12. Claude Opus 4.748.9%
  13. Claude Opus 4.848.8%
  14. Gemini 4 Argon48.3%
  15. GPT-6.1 Terra47.6%
  16. Claude Opus 4.647%
  17. Claude Opus 4.546.6%
  18. DeepSeek V4 Pro45.2%
  19. MiniMax M3.1 Flash45.1%
  20. Grok 4.742.7%
  21. GPT-5.6 Terra42.3%
  22. Muse Spark Open42%
  23. Claude Sonnet 4.640.9%
  24. Claude Sonnet 540.1%
  25. GPT-6 Luna39.6%
  26. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash39.6%
  27. Muse Wonder38%
  28. Muse Spark 1.338%
  29. Step 5 Preview36.4%
  30. MiMo-V2.6-Pro34.8%
  31. Claude Haiku 5.534.7%
  32. Claude Sonnet 4.532.9%
  33. GLM-5.332.3%
  34. Qwen3.8 Max29.5%
  35. GLM-5.3-Flash28.2%
  36. MiMo-V2.6-Flash27.2%
  37. Ling 3.1 Flash26.5%
  38. Mistral Large 426%
  39. Mistral Medium 3.523%
  40. Claude Haiku 4.518%
  41. Qwen3.8 27B17.3%
  42. GPT-5.6 Sol69.7%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  43. Gemini 3.6 Flash66.2%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  44. GPT-5.563%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  45. Kimi K350.6%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  46. Grok 4.648.9%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  47. Grok 4.548.3%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  48. GPT-5.6 Luna41%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  49. Kimi K2.7 Code36.5%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  50. GLM-5.234.2%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  51. gpt-oss-120b16.8%OpenAI's own figure, SimpleQA
  52. Gemma 4 31B10.4%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified

The other models in the grid have no result on AA-Omniscience Accuracy yet.

Answers in fullSpeechMap

  1. Grok 4.593.1%
  2. Gemini 3.6 Flash87.2%
  3. Gemini 4 Argon87%
  4. Gemini 3.8 Flash86.1%
  5. Grok 4.683.6%
  6. Claude Opus 5.582.8%
  7. Gemma 4 31B82.3%
  8. Claude Sonnet 5.581.6%
  9. Claude Haiku 5.578.8%
  10. Claude Opus 573.7%
  11. Claude Fable 5.172.4%
  12. DeepSeek V4 Pro72%
  13. GLM-5.371.5%
  14. Mistral Medium 3.570.5%
  15. Claude Opus 4.770.2%
  16. Llama 4 Scout70.1%
  17. GPT-6.1 Sol69.5%
  18. GPT-6 Astra68.2%
  19. Claude Opus 4.867.4%
  20. MiMo-V2.6-Flash66.9%
  21. MiMo-V2.6-Pro66.5%
  22. Kimi K365.9%
  23. GLM-5.3-Flash65.4%
  24. Qwen3.8 Max65.3%
  25. Claude Fable 564.8%
  26. Grok 4.764.1%
  27. GPT-6 Sol64%
  28. GPT-6 Luna63.4%
  29. Claude Opus 4.659.9%
  30. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview59.9%
  31. Step 5 Preview59.7%
  32. Llama 4 Maverick58.3%
  33. Claude Opus 4.557.5%
  34. Muse Wonder42.7%
  35. gpt-oss-120b36.3%
  36. Claude Sonnet 4.635.8%
  37. Claude Sonnet 4.531.4%
  38. Muse Spark 1.325.8%
  39. Claude Haiku 4.524.7%

The other models in the grid have no result on SpeechMap yet.

Instruction followingMultiChallenge

  1. GPT-6.1 Sol82%
  2. Gemini 4 Argon78.7%
  3. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash74.9%
  4. GPT-6.1 Terra74.2%
  5. Muse Spark Open74.2%
  6. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview71.4%
  7. Claude Haiku 5.567.7%
  8. Claude Opus 4.559%
  9. Claude Sonnet 4.555.3%
  10. Claude Haiku 4.550.5%
  11. gpt-oss-120b45.3%
  12. Claude Opus 4.637.2%
  13. Qwen3.8 27B79.5%Alibaba's own figure, IFBench
  14. GPT-5.575.9%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  15. Gemma 4 31B75.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  16. GPT-5.3-Codex75.4%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  17. GPT-5.473.9%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  18. GLM-5.273.3%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  19. GPT-5.6 Sol72.7%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  20. GPT-5.6 Terra71.2%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  21. Mistral Medium 3.568.8%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  22. Claude Fable 563.5%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  23. Kimi K2.7 Code63.1%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  24. Claude Opus 4.862.2%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  25. Claude Opus 4.758.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  26. Claude Sonnet 4.656.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  27. Llama 4 Maverick43%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  28. Llama 4 Scout39.5%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench

The other models in the grid have no result on MultiChallenge yet.

Every measure on record

Cost, speed, reliability, knowledge-work and domain results for Kimi K3.1 Pro beyond the twelve chart axes, each with the run it comes from and its publisher. These stay separate measures; none is folded into the chart.

Every measure on record for Kimi K3.1 Pro: the value, the run it comes from, the publisher and the day it was read
MeasureKimi K3.1 ProRunSourceRead
Specs and access
Context windowThe most tokens one request can hold, as the maker states it. Size alone says nothing about how well the model uses a long input; the Long context axis measures that.1MArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Max outputThe most tokens the model writes in one response.944Kno Moonshot AI figure in the stored maker sources; OpenRouter lists 943,718OpenRouterOct 28, 2026
ReadsThe kinds of input the model accepts.Text, ImagesArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
LicenceThe terms the weights or the service are offered under.Kimi K3.1 Pro LicenseMoonshot AINov 4, 2026
Open weightsWhether the maker publishes the weights for anyone to run.YesMoonshot AINov 4, 2026
Routes offering itOf the 19 clouds, gateways and coding products GILD tracks, how many offer the release today, preview included.3 of 19GILD route matrixOct 28, 2026
Cost
Answer tokens per taskLower is better. Answer tokens per Intelligence Index task, reasoning excluded.20,312Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per task, cache readsLower is better. The cache-read share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$1.06Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per task, cache writesLower is better. The cache-write share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$0.46Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per task, inputLower is better. The input-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$1.56Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per task, outputLower is better. The answer-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$0.55Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per task, reasoningLower is better. The reasoning-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$0.35Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per taskLower is better. What one Intelligence Index task cost AA at list price, input, cache, output and reasoning tokens together.$2.11Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost to run the indexLower is better. What the whole Intelligence Index run cost AA at list price. The runs cost from tens of dollars to about $13,000, so the axis is log from $10 to $100,000.$3,117Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Output tokens per taskLower is better. Tokens the model wrote per Intelligence Index task, reasoning included: how verbose it is.55,195Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Reasoning tokens per taskLower is better. Reasoning tokens per Intelligence Index task.34,883Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Speed
End-to-end time, 100K promptLower is better. Median seconds for a whole response with a 100,000-token prompt.44 sKimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
End-to-end response timeLower is better. Seconds AA measures for a whole response on its standard prompt.59 sKimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Time to first answer token, 100K promptLower is better. Median seconds to the first answer token with a 100,000-token prompt.38 sKimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Time to first answer tokenLower is better. Seconds until the first answer token, after any reasoning, on AA's API runs.48 sKimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Output speed, 100K promptMedian output tokens per second when the prompt is about 100,000 tokens long.76 tokens/sKimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Output speedMedian output tokens per second on AA's API runs, with the 5th and 95th percentile when AA prints them.44 tokens/sKimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Time per taskLower is better. Wall-clock seconds per Intelligence Index task. Runs take from about 15 s to about 33 min, so the axis is log from 1 s to 10,000 s.1,073 sKimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Time to first token, 100K promptLower is better. Median seconds to the first chunk when the prompt is about 100,000 tokens long: long-input latency, separate from window size.11 sKimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Time to first tokenLower is better. Median seconds to the first streamed chunk on AA's API runs, with the 5th and 95th percentile when AA prints them. Reasoning models spend this time thinking.3.0 sKimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Reliability
Hallucination rateLower is better. AA-Omniscience hallucination rate shows how often the model answers wrongly when it does not know and should decline.37.3%Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
Omniscience accuracyShare of AA-Omniscience knowledge questions answered correctly.48.9%Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
Omniscience indexAA-Omniscience index: correct answers minus wrong answers, declines neutral, -100 to 100.29.5Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Knowledge work
AA-BriefcaseAA-Briefcase overall Elo for long business deliverables, with AA's 95% interval.1,678Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
AnalystAgent (AA run)AA's AnalystAgent score for analyst workflows.38.8%Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
GDP-PDF (AA run)Share of GDP-PDF document tasks where every check passes.31.4%Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
GDPval-AAGDPval-AA Elo: AA's run of economically valuable knowledge-work tasks, graded pairwise, with AA's interval.1,846Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
MLCR (AA run)AA's MLCR overall score for long, multi-document reading.38.3%Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Capability beyond the chart
AA-LCRAA long-context reasoning accuracy.86.3%Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
CritPt (AA run)Share of CritPt research-level physics problems solved in AA's run.24.6%Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
FrontierCode (AA run)AA's FrontierCode score: hard, unsaturated coding tasks.47.1%Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Humanity's Last Exam (AA run)Share of Humanity's Last Exam questions answered correctly in AA's run.52.5%Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Intelligence IndexArtificial Analysis Intelligence Index: AA's composite of its own evaluation runs, 0 to 100 points.55.1Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
MMMU-Pro (AA run)Multimodal understanding accuracy on MMMU-Pro in AA's run.83.9%Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
SciCode (AA run)SciCode subproblem accuracy in AA's run.60.8%Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA run)Share of Terminal-Bench 4.0 tasks solved in AA's own harness.67.2%Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Terminal-Bench Science (AA run)Share of Terminal-Bench Science tasks solved in AA's harness.34.3%Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Domains
EconomicsArtificial Analysis capability score for economics questions, 0 to 100 points.60Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
EngineeringArtificial Analysis capability score for engineering questions, 0 to 100 points.55.9Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Finance and accountingArtificial Analysis capability score for finance and accounting questions, 0 to 100 points.56.5Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Healthcare and medicalArtificial Analysis capability score for healthcare and medical questions, 0 to 100 points.51.7Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
LegalArtificial Analysis capability score for legal questions, 0 to 100 points.55.8Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Strategy and operationsArtificial Analysis capability score for strategy and operations questions, 0 to 100 points.59.4Kimi K3.1 ProArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026

Routes, prices and uptime

Where Kimi K3.1 Pro is offered, what each route charges, and how each endpoint is holding up.

Where it is offered

3 of 19 routes GILD tracks offer Kimi K3.1 Pro today, preview included. Read Oct 28, 2026 from each route's own pages.

RouteStatusModel IDLimits and lifecycleSources
The maker's own APIAvailablekimi-k3.1-prokimi-k3.1-pro-highspeed1,048,576-token context; ZDR available; also in Kimi CodeMoonshot AI (Kimi), Kimi K3.1 Pro Tech Blog: Advancing Open IntelligenceMoonshot AI (Kimi), Kimi K3.1 Pro
GitHub ModelsRetirednot applicableservice retiredservice retired July 30, 2026GitHub, GitHub Models
OpenCodeAvailablekimi-k3.1-proOpenCode Go only; OpenCode Zen/Console lists Kimi K3AnomalyOpenCode (Anomaly)
OpenRouterAvailablemoonshotai/kimi-k3.1-pro1,048,576 / 943,718; Highspeed endpoint at 2xOpenRouter

Not offered on 8 routes: Amazon Bedrock, Antigravity, Cursor, Databricks, GitHub Copilot, Google Cloud Vertex / Agent Platform (Google managed), Microsoft Foundry and Windsurf / Devin.

7 routes do not say: Claude Code, Claude on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed), Claude Platform on AWS, Codex, Gemini CLI, Grok Build and Snowflake Cortex.

What each of these 15 routes' pages say, with sources
RouteStatusModel IDLimits and lifecycleSources
Amazon BedrockNot offeredBedrock lists Kimi K3, K2.5, K2 ThinkingAmazon Web Services, Models at a glanceAmazon Web Services, Supported foundation models in Amazon Bedrock
AntigravityNot offeredAntigravity lists Gemini, Claude and GPT-OSS models onlyGoogle
CursorNot offeredCursor lists Kimi K3 onlyAnysphere (Cursor)Cursor
DatabricksNot offeredDatabricks lists Kimi K3 onlyDatabricks, Databricks-hosted inferenceDatabricks, Detailed list of models supported by Databricks Foundation Model APIs
GitHub CopilotNot offeredCopilot lists Kimi K3 onlyGitHub, Supported AI models in GitHub Copilot
Google Cloud Vertex / Agent Platform (Google managed)Not offeredGoogle lists Kimi K2 Thinking onlyGoogle Cloud, Anthropic's Claude on Google Cloud modelsGoogle Cloud, Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform partner models for MaaS
Microsoft FoundryNot offeredFoundry lists Kimi K2.7 Code, K2.6, K2.5Microsoft Learn, Foundry Models sold by Azure
Windsurf / DevinNot offeredDevin lists Kimi K3 onlyCognition (Devin, formerly Windsurf), AI Models
Claude CodeNot statedClaude Code's model configuration page, read Oct 28 and Oct 29, 2026, does not name this model. It takes a full model name on the Anthropic API, an inference profile ARN on Amazon Bedrock and a deployment name on Microsoft Foundry.Anthropic
Claude on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed)Not statedRegion, tier and limits not stated on the route's pages.
Claude Platform on AWSNot statedRegion, tier and limits not stated on the route's pages.
CodexNot statedCodex docs list OpenAI models only
Gemini CLINot statedRegion, tier and limits not stated on the route's pages.
Grok BuildNot statedGrok Build pages name only grok-4.7xAI (SpaceXSI)
Snowflake CortexNot statedRegion, tier and limits not stated on the route's pages.

Prices by route

The lowest standard rate is Kimi API, at $2 / $10 per million input and output tokens. US dollars per million tokens, as each route lists them, one row per route and rate plan, cheapest standard rate first after the maker's own; a blended rate states its mix. OpenRouter's endpoints follow under one heading, each with its monitor's uptime over 1 day and 30 minutes and the context and output it serves.

RouteStandard, in / outCache readOther ratesSource, or uptime (1 day / 30 min) and limits
Kimi APIMakerLowest$2 / $10Moonshot AI, Oct 27, 2026
Artificial Analysis price record$2 / $10$0.2Blended $4, 3 input : 1 output, no cacheBlended $1.54, 7 cache-hit : 2 input : 1 outputArtificial Analysis, Oct 27, 2026
OpenRouter$2 / $10$0.2OpenRouter, Oct 28, 2026
Through OpenRouter, 2 provider endpoints. OpenRouter, Oct 28, 2026
Moonshot AI (mxfp4)$2 / $10$0.2Up 100% / 100%1.05M context, 944K output
Moonshot AI (highspeed, priority)Cache read $0.2, priority tierPriority $4 / $20, priority tierUp 100% / 100%1.05M context, 944K output

Uptime and speed by endpoint

Each provider endpoint as its monitor reports it: uptime over the last day and the last 30 minutes, output speed and time to first token, and the limits it serves. A blank is a figure the monitor does not publish for that endpoint.

EndpointUptime, 1 dayUptime, 30 minOutput speedFirst tokenContext / max outputSource
Artificial Analysis: Kimi High Speed79 tokens/s3.2 sArtificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026
Artificial Analysis: Kimi41 tokens/s2.8 sArtificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026
Status page: Open API99.9%, Calendar month: August 2026; component: Open APIMoonshot AI, Oct 28, 2026
Status page: Open API99.9%, Calendar month: September 2026; component: Open APIMoonshot AI, Oct 28, 2026
Status page: Open API100.0%, Calendar month: October 2026; component: Open APIMoonshot AI, Oct 28, 2026

Lineup

Moonshot AI's 3 releases in 2 families, oldest to newest along each tier, with list price and speed. Kimi K3.1 Pro is lit.

CurrentLegacyThis model

Price is the list price per 1M tokens, input / output. Speed is median output tokens per second. Bars share one scale across the lineup. Read between Oct 27, 2026 and Oct 31, 2026.

  1. Kimi K3.1

    Moonshot AI's Kimi family for reasoning, coding, and long-context work.

    1 release

    1. This pageProCurrent. In 1 product we coverPrice$2 / $10Speed41.4 tok/s

  2. Kimi

    Moonshot AI's earlier Kimi K2 and K3 models for coding, agents and long-context work.

    2 releases

    1. K2.7 CodeLegacy. In 1 product we coverPrice$0.95 / $4Speed46.7 tok/s
    2. K3Legacy. In 2 products we coverPrice$3 / $15Speed61.7 tok/s

Where it fits

The layers of Agentic Software Development that Kimi K3.1 Pro can power. A product supplies the rest.

Product & Engineering, Software Development

Agentic Software Development

Primary role
Foundation Model / Reasoning Engine

Kimi K3.1 Pro can power coding, reasoning, and validation work inside an agentic software-development product. The Model does not itself provide the surrounding interface, execution environment, or system of record.

  1. Work planning & task decomposition

    The Model can assist with work planning & task decomposition when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.

    Supporting

  2. Codebase context & intelligence

    The provider documents long-context or codebase-oriented reasoning suitable for this layer. Moonshot AI's page

    Strong fit

  3. Coding & implementation

    The provider documents this Model for software-engineering and coding work. Moonshot AI's page

    Strong fit

  4. Debugging & investigation

    The Model can assist with debugging & investigation when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.

    Supporting

  5. Testing & verification

    The Model can assist with testing & verification when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.

    Supporting

  6. Code review & quality

    The Model can assist with code review & quality when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.

    Supporting

Products

We cover 1 product that offers Kimi K3.1 Pro today, all subscriptions.

Through a subscription

  1. OpenCode+27 PositiveOpen-source, MIT-licensed coding agent that edits code and runs commands from a terminal UI, desktop app, web client, or editor extension.Go, Go PlusPlans that include it

Limits each vendor states

OpenCodeGo, Go Plus
Estimated requests per 5 hours: Go 147, Go Plus 588; monthly usage: Go $15, Go Plus $60

Plan access as each vendor's page states it: Anomaly (Oct 28, 2026).

Comparisons

GILD comparisons that name Kimi K3.1 Pro, then those of the clouds and APIs that serve it.

What practitioners report

Strongest on Quality and reasoning, weakest on Reliability.

Each figure is the share of accounts naming Kimi K3.1 Pro that speak well of it on that axis. An axis is scored once praise and concerns are both on record from at least five accounts by three authors. An account from the maker, a company that sells or serves the model, or the maker's expert program is listed and counts toward no figure.

Share of practitioner accounts favorable to Kimi K3.1 Pro on each of seven axes, with the accounts behind each figure
AxisFavorableAccounts
Quality and reasoningWhether its answers and code are right on the author's own task: reasoning, accuracy, instruction following, and consistency.59%20 favorable, 14 not, 32 authors
Tool use and structured outputWhether it calls tools correctly, returns valid structured output, and keeps agent loops on track.Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors
Long contextHow it holds up over long documents, large codebases, long sessions, and many images or PDFs.Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors
Developer experienceHow it is to build with: prompting, steering, effort settings, and support across SDKs and providers.9%1 favorable, 10 not, 11 authors
CostWhat the work costs: price per task, token use, and what caching and batch save.40%10 favorable, 15 not, 25 authors
SpeedResponse time, time to first token, and throughput.21%4 favorable, 15 not, 19 authors
ReliabilityWhether requests keep succeeding: overloaded errors, outages, rate limits, and changes that broke what worked.8%1 favorable, 12 not, 13 authors
Every model on these seven axes
Share of accounts favorable on each axis for Kimi K3.1 Pro and every other model GILD has accounts for
AxisKimi K3.1 ProKimi K3Kimi K2.7 CodeClaude Haiku 5.5Claude Sonnet 5.5Claude Opus 5.5Claude Fable 5.1Claude Opus 5Claude Sonnet 5Claude Fable 5Claude Opus 4.8Claude Opus 4.7Claude Sonnet 4.6Claude Opus 4.6Claude Opus 4.5Claude Haiku 4.5Claude Sonnet 4.5GPT-6.1 TerraGPT-6.1 SolGPT-6 LunaGPT-6 AstraGPT-5.6 SolGPT-5.6 TerraGPT-5.6 LunaGPT-5.5GPT-5.4gpt-oss-120bGPT-6 SolGPT-5.3-CodexGemini 4 ArgonGemini 3.8 FlashGemma 4 31BGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewGemini 3.6 FlashDeepSeek V4.1 FlashDeepSeek V4 ProMistral Large 4Mistral Medium 3.5Grok 4.7Grok 4.6Grok 4.5MiniMax M3.1 FlashMercury 3GLM-5.3-FlashGLM-5.3GLM-5.2Muse Spark OpenMuse WonderMuse Spark 1.3Llama 4 ScoutLlama 4 MaverickQwen3.8 27BQwen3.8 MaxMiMo-V2.6-ProMiMo-V2.6-FlashLing 3.1 FlashStep 5 Preview
Quality and reasoning59%20 favorable, 14 not, 32 authorsOnly praise on record3 favorable, 0 not, 3 authors50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors73%19 favorable, 7 not, 26 authors64%14 favorable, 8 not, 22 authors68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors54%15 favorable, 13 not, 28 authors50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors56%9 favorable, 7 not, 16 authors68%13 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors57%12 favorable, 9 not, 21 authors67%12 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors70%19 favorable, 8 not, 27 authors62%13 favorable, 8 not, 20 authors58%14 favorable, 10 not, 24 authors69%11 favorable, 5 not, 16 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors55%12 favorable, 10 not, 22 authors55%16 favorable, 13 not, 29 authors44%12 favorable, 15 not, 26 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors58%22 favorable, 16 not, 38 authors31%10 favorable, 22 not, 32 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors63%22 favorable, 13 not, 35 authors56%27 favorable, 21 not, 45 authors80%24 favorable, 6 not, 28 authors56%20 favorable, 16 not, 36 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors61%25 favorable, 16 not, 40 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors58%11 favorable, 8 not, 18 authors36%5 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors43%16 favorable, 21 not, 36 authors86%6 favorable, 1 not, 7 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors62%13 favorable, 8 not, 21 authors86%18 favorable, 3 not, 21 authors67%14 favorable, 7 not, 21 authors76%47 favorable, 15 not, 61 authors71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authorsOnly praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors53%8 favorable, 7 not, 15 authors44%8 favorable, 10 not, 17 authors71%24 favorable, 10 not, 34 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors
Tool use and structured outputNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yet67%6 favorable, 3 not, 9 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors30%3 favorable, 7 not, 10 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors43%3 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors62%8 favorable, 5 not, 13 authorsNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorNo accounts yet27%4 favorable, 11 not, 15 authors56%5 favorable, 4 not, 9 authorsNo accounts yet25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors47%7 favorable, 8 not, 15 authors67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors54%7 favorable, 6 not, 12 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author59%10 favorable, 7 not, 17 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authorsOnly praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors80%8 favorable, 2 not, 10 authors33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 2 not, 3 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author
Long contextNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors80%8 favorable, 2 not, 10 authors63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors60%6 favorable, 4 not, 10 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors64%7 favorable, 4 not, 11 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authorsNo accounts yet25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors44%7 favorable, 9 not, 16 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author58%7 favorable, 5 not, 12 authorsNo accounts yetNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authorsNo accounts yet42%5 favorable, 7 not, 12 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yet40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authorsNo accounts yet40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors75%6 favorable, 2 not, 8 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yet
Developer experience9%1 favorable, 10 not, 11 authorsNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors50%7 favorable, 7 not, 14 authors25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors53%10 favorable, 9 not, 19 authors29%4 favorable, 10 not, 14 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors67%8 favorable, 4 not, 12 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 2 not, 4 authors50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authors25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors41%7 favorable, 10 not, 17 authorsNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetNo accounts yetNo accounts yet14%1 favorable, 6 not, 7 authors25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authorsNo accounts yet33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors40%8 favorable, 12 not, 20 authorsNo accounts yet35%8 favorable, 15 not, 23 authorsNo accounts yet13%2 favorable, 14 not, 16 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authors25%5 favorable, 15 not, 20 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors11%1 favorable, 8 not, 9 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors33%5 favorable, 10 not, 15 authorsNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 6 not, 6 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetNo accounts yet
Cost40%10 favorable, 15 not, 25 authors71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors69%20 favorable, 9 not, 29 authors45%10 favorable, 12 not, 22 authors56%15 favorable, 12 not, 27 authors20%4 favorable, 16 not, 20 authors43%3 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authors8%1 favorable, 11 not, 12 authors40%6 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors50%7 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors33%7 favorable, 14 not, 20 authors53%8 favorable, 7 not, 15 authors29%4 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors80%8 favorable, 2 not, 9 authors74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 authors79%22 favorable, 6 not, 26 authors29%7 favorable, 17 not, 23 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors55%12 favorable, 10 not, 21 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors35%7 favorable, 13 not, 20 authors58%14 favorable, 10 not, 23 authorsOnly praise on record7 favorable, 0 not, 7 authors50%8 favorable, 8 not, 16 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author66%25 favorable, 13 not, 37 authorsOnly praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 8 not, 8 authors19%5 favorable, 21 not, 26 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authorsOnly praise on record4 favorable, 0 not, 4 authors80%12 favorable, 3 not, 15 authors50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors76%16 favorable, 5 not, 21 authors35%8 favorable, 15 not, 23 authors71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 2 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsOnly praise on record3 favorable, 0 not, 3 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author
Speed21%4 favorable, 15 not, 19 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsNo accounts yet74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 authors88%14 favorable, 2 not, 16 authors46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors31%4 favorable, 9 not, 13 authors63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors36%4 favorable, 7 not, 11 authors73%8 favorable, 3 not, 11 authors78%7 favorable, 2 not, 9 authors75%6 favorable, 2 not, 8 authors83%5 favorable, 1 not, 5 authors37%7 favorable, 12 not, 19 authors45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors41%7 favorable, 10 not, 17 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors80%4 favorable, 1 not, 5 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNo accounts yet85%23 favorable, 4 not, 27 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors61%19 favorable, 12 not, 31 authors53%10 favorable, 9 not, 17 authors35%6 favorable, 11 not, 16 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors68%21 favorable, 10 not, 30 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author21%3 favorable, 11 not, 14 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors29%5 favorable, 12 not, 17 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 2 not, 3 authorsOnly praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors65%13 favorable, 7 not, 20 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authorsNo accounts yet33%7 favorable, 14 not, 21 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author
Reliability8%1 favorable, 12 not, 13 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors9%1 favorable, 10 not, 11 authors13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors63%5 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors17%2 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authors38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors14%2 favorable, 12 not, 14 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors5%1 favorable, 18 not, 19 authors15%3 favorable, 17 not, 20 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors14%3 favorable, 19 not, 22 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author42%5 favorable, 7 not, 12 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yet60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors33%2 favorable, 4 not, 5 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author
The 75 accounts behind Kimi K3.1 Pro's figures

GILD searched Hacker News, GitHub, X, Artificial Analysis, OpenRouter and the web for accounts that name Kimi K3.1 Pro.

Quality and reasoning 59%

  • Favorable
    amongst the leading models in intelligence

    Artificial Analysis - Kimi K3.1 Pro. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro (reasoning).

  • Unfavorable
    Opus still give wayyy better results than Kimi

    Long Huynh on X: Opus 5.5 vs Kimi K3.1 Pro in my codebase. Long Huynh, X user, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro (Max) against Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh) in his own codebase.

  • Favorable
    My winner: Kimi Did I get it wrong?

    Latent Operator on X: Kimi K3.1 Pro vs GPT-6 Luna vs DeepSeek V4.1. Latent Operator, X account that posts visual AI model comparisons, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro against GPT-6 Luna and DeepSeek V4.1 on one visual build task.

  • Favorable
    Might be Opus quality, but who cares at this speed

    Jeremy Chone on X: Kimi K3.1 is SO SLOW. Jeremy Chone, X user who runs production Rust services at BriteSnow, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro (the post says Kimi K3.1) on his own coding task, against Argon, Opus 5.5 and GPT-6.1 Sol.

  • Favorable
    So far I think the creativity of the model is ridiculously good

    crypto_mazino on X: Kimi K3.1 creativity. crypto_mazino, X user, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro (the post says Kimi 3.1) on a Kimi subscription for an hour of JavaScript work.

  • Favorable
    It's 55, at 4th overall, beating both GPT-6 Astra and Fable 5.1.

    Kimi K3.1 Pro and K3.1 Pro Highspeed. minimaxir, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on the Artificial Analysis index, as read by the commenter.

  • Favorable
    But this is now the highest scoring open-weight model.

    Kimi K3.1 Pro and K3.1 Pro Highspeed. dom96, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on his KillSwitch adversarial programming language benchmark.

  • Favorable
    Big improvement over Kimi K3 in our data analytics benchmark

    Kimi K3.1 Pro and K3.1 Pro Highspeed. chriddyp, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on Plotly's data analytics benchmark.

  • Favorable
    Really impressive result

    Kimi K3.1 Pro and K3.1 Pro Highspeed. aojharaj2004, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro (launch thread on Hacker News).

  • Favorable
    Kimi K3.1 Pro ties Sonnet 5.5 at 93

    Kimi K3.1 Pro and K3.1 Pro Highspeed. thefourthchime, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on the Pac-Man bakeoff benchmark.

  • Favorable
    Now it's my daily driver and I have zero complaints.

    IBM CEO says open weight models are now good and cheap on-prem. rglover, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Kimi K3 and Kimi K3.1 Pro as a daily driver, human in the loop.

  • Unfavorable
    Just ask Opus and Kimi to build a game about something random, like "make a Mario Kart-inspired game." Opus gives better results most of the time.

    Kimi K3.1 Pro and K3.1 Pro Highspeed. cesarvarela, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro against Opus 5.5 on game-building prompts (launch thread).

  • Unfavorable
    Still rather impressive, but not quite frontier.

    Kimi K3.1 scores 55 on Artificial Analysis, placed on the Pareto line. mppm, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on AA-Omniscience and the commenter's own trickier problems.

  • Unfavorable
    It's at least 4 months away on

    Kimi K3.1 Pro puts open-source AI a month behind the best. drewbitt, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on AA-Omniscience and other benchmarks.

  • Unfavorable
    still way behind GPT-6.1 Sol in terms of cost or performance

    Kimi K3.1 Pro and K3.1 Pro Highspeed. XCSme, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on the aibenchy comparison against Kimi K3 and GPT-6.1 Sol.

  • Favorable
    I used Kimi K3.1 Pro to figure it out as soon as cloudlandsdev put php-version.php live. The exploit worked just like this in a local Docker lab.

    Steal My Bitcoin CTF PoC. pwython, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on a capture-the-flag exploit.

  • Favorable
    I think it's still remarkable that this is effectively an open model that matches the frontier

    Kimi K3.1 Pro and K3.1 Pro Highspeed. thepasch, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro against Opus 5.5 and Sonnet 5.5 on Artificial Analysis token counts.

  • Favorable
    That ties Grok 4.7 for the third-best score on our leaderboard of 34 models

    Kimi K3.1 Pro Benchmark Results for Data Analysis. Plotly, maker of Plotly Studio and Dash, on its DataAnalyticsBench, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro (standard, through OpenRouter) on Plotly's 43-question data analytics exam.

  • Favorable
    This is the first time a (soon-to-be) open weight model has scored this highly against the frontier.

    Introducing Kimi K3.1 Pro. Simon Willison, creator of the LLM command-line tool and co-creator of Django, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro through the Moonshot API with the LLM tool at low, medium and max reasoning.

  • Favorable
    posted **3 inline review comments** (1 `[P1]`, 2 `[P2]`) with zero noise or stylistic filler

    Kimi K3.1 limited code review initial impressions. noelsaw1, GitHub user reviewing PRs for a Shopify B2B app, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro (the issue says Kimi K3.1) reviewing a production PR after Codex and Claude Opus 5 passes.

  • Unfavorable
    the model is nowhere near what they claimed it to be

    Even the ultra subscription is unusable for coding, or is it just me?. ryudice, Reddit user, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on a Kimi subscription for coding.

  • Favorable
    This model just landed #8 in the Code Arena: WebDev with 1692 pts, matching Claude Opus-5 (Max) at 70% lower cost.

    Arena.ai on X: Kimi K3.1 Pro in the Code Arena: WebDev. Arena.ai (LMArena), independent model leaderboard, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro (Max) in the Code Arena: WebDev leaderboard.

  • Unfavorable
    Compared to Opus 5.5, I think K3.1 lacks thinking. It's just alright.

    Ziwen on X: Kimi K3.1 honest review. Ziwen, X user who tries and builds with AI tools, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro (the post says Kimi K3.1) against Opus 5.5, on the Kimi coding plan and API.

  • Favorable
    Kimi K3.1 Pro passed all 96 hidden tests in every run.

    Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Claude Opus 5.5: Pricing, Benchmarks, and What a Coding Task Really Costs. Nadya Dudka and Andrew Dyuzhov, Atomic Agent, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on the Kimi API in Atomic Agent v0.6.9, low and max reasoning effort, three runs each on a Python repair task.

  • Unfavorable
    Kimi K3.1 Pro doesn't match either Claude model on agentic coding.

    Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Claude Opus 5.5 vs Sonnet 5.5 for coding. Amar Goel, co-founder and CEO of Bito, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro inside Claude Code on Bito's agentic coding benchmark, 8 long and 16 short sessions on launch day.

  • Unfavorable
    Its long-session scores also spread more than K3's from one session to the next.

    Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Kimi K3 for coding: more thinking, same score. Amar Goel, co-founder and CEO of Bito, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro against Kimi K3 inside Claude Code on Bito's agentic coding benchmark.

  • Favorable
    Accurate and disciplined inside the scope it was given.

    Kimi K3.1 limited code review initial impressions (second field test). noelsaw1, GitHub user running Kimi as planner and builder in a relay harness, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro (kimi-code/k3.1-pro) in Kimi Code CLI 2.3.1, headless, as planner and builder.

  • Favorable
    It ranks #8 of 27 models on the Vals Index with 62.52%.

    Kimi K3.1 Pro Benchmarks, Cost and Capabilities. Vals AI, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro at max reasoning effort through Moonshot AI on the Vals Index.

  • Favorable
    StealthMark 56.7 /100 Overall rank 11/51

    Kimi K3.1 Pro Benchmarks, Pricing and Speed | Stealth Models. Stealth Models (StealthMark), independent benchmark site, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on StealthMark, priced and speed-tested through the Kimi API and OpenRouter.

  • Favorable
    Kimi K3.1 Pro scored 86.1%, ranking #4 overall on the DualEntry Accounting AI Benchmark.

    Are You Overspending on Closed AI Models? Kimi K3.1 Pro Just Ranked #4 in Accounting. John Iwuozor, Content Lead, Finance and Research at DualEntry, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on the DualEntry Accounting AI Benchmark, 101 cases, three runs each.

  • Favorable
    K3.1 one-shotted all 3 parts of the problem.

    Is it just me or Kimi K3.1 Pro don't look much better than DeepSeek 4.1 Flash?. hurrdurrmeh, Reddit user, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro against DeepSeek V4.1 Flash API on a coding problem.

  • Unfavorable
    Kimi 3.1 Pro #4 on AAI is super bad in real world use cases, not even close to DeepSeek 4.1 Flash.

    Artificial Analysis Index is non-representative of real-world performance. Tested Kimi 3.1 Pro through OpenRouter. PerformanceRound7913, Reddit user, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro (the post says Kimi 3.1 Pro) through OpenRouter on an ANSI C to Rust conversion project.

  • Unfavorable
    This model is pretty weak I expected a lot more from it.

    Even the ultra subscription is unusable for coding, or is it just me?. PurposeBig964, Reddit user, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on the $200 Kimi subscription.

  • Favorable
    Even so, K3.1's scene holds up

    New K3.1 beat GPT-6 Astra 2x on price in a 3D agent task. GapNew4766, Reddit user who works on the Atomic Agent harness, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro (kimi-k3.1-pro, early access) against GPT-6 Astra in an Atomic Agent loop on a Three.js build.

  • Unfavorable
    early impressions, it feels pretty disappointing so far

    Dev Ed on X: Kimi K 3.1 Pro (max) procedural pixel art test against Opus 5.5. Dev Ed, developer and YouTuber, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro at max effort against Opus 5.5 on procedural pixel art and other tests.

  • Unfavorable
    it failed in the most unbelievable ways fixing a simple bug in my Miasm -> x86 compiler. GLM, sol and Astra did the same task perfectly fine.

    K3.1 Pro is dissapointing. Adventurous_Bit1996, Reddit user, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on a bug fix in a Miasm to x86 compiler.

  • Favorable
    It did a great attempt at trying to reverse engineer my shitty smart lights

    K3.1 Pro is dissapointing. permissionBRICK, Reddit user, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro reverse engineering smart lights.

  • Unfavorable
    This is the first outright dud from Moonshot.

    K3.1 Pro is dissapointing. LoveMind_AI, Reddit user, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro.

  • Favorable
    ranks 8th of 37 models, ten places above its predecessor

    Kimi K3.1 Pro is now available for auto-annotation in Ultralytics Platform. Glenn Jocher, founder and CEO of Ultralytics, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro at high reasoning effort on the Ultralytics VLM Leaderboard (360 images from 36 detection datasets).

Tool use and structured output Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors

Long context Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors

  • Favorable
    It does this by looking at a lot of data at once.

    Kimi K3.1 Pro Benchmark Results for Data Analysis. Plotly, maker of Plotly Studio and Dash, on its DataAnalyticsBench, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro (standard, through OpenRouter) on Plotly's 43-question data analytics exam.

  • Favorable
    Kimi K3.1 demonstrated noticeably stronger **whole-file and cross-entry-point state tracing** in a ~7,500-line UI state module

    Kimi K3.1 limited code review initial impressions. noelsaw1, GitHub user reviewing PRs for a Shopify B2B app, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro (the issue says Kimi K3.1) reviewing a production PR after Codex and Claude Opus 5 passes.

  • Unfavorable
    Opus is 16 points ahead on long sessions, and the gap grows as the session goes on.

    Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Claude Opus 5.5 vs Sonnet 5.5 for coding. Amar Goel, co-founder and CEO of Bito, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro inside Claude Code on Bito's agentic coding benchmark, 8 long and 16 short sessions on launch day.

  • Favorable
    I wanted to see how K3.1 Pro handles a long build with zero help, so I gave it one prompt in AgenC Core at max effort and left it alone. 38 minutes later I had a working Three.js app

    Let Kimi K3.1 Pro build an F-22 hangar in Three.js by itself. Came back 38 minutes later to this. pzarevich, Reddit user running the AgenC Core harness, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro at max effort in the AgenC Core agent harness, one prompt, no help.

  • Favorable
    followed by Step 5 Preview with a score of 88.3% and Kimi K3.1 Pro with a score of 86.3%

    AA-LCR v1.1 long context reasoning benchmark | Artificial Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on Artificial Analysis Long Context Reasoning (AA-LCR v1.1).

Developer experience 9%

  • Unfavorable
    it generated 150M tokens, which is very verbose in comparison to the median of 87M

    Artificial Analysis - Kimi K3.1 Pro. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro (reasoning).

  • Unfavorable
    switching the reasoning effort from the default high to low makes it even slower

    Aliaksei Zelianouski on X: The new Kimi K3.1 is so slow. Aliaksei Zelianouski, software engineer (15 years) building AI agents, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro (the post says Kimi K3.1) through the Moonshot API with about 8k context, high and low reasoning effort.

  • Unfavorable
    So I just created a brand new Kimi API account and it seems I have no access to this new model.

    Kimi K3.1 Pro and K3.1 Pro Highspeed. dom96, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on a new Kimi API account on launch day.

  • Unfavorable
    returns **400 on every request that does not carry a `thinking` field**

    gateway/Kimi: K3.1 Pro 400s on every request without a thinking field. CuteSamurai24, GitHub user running the magpie gateway with ZCode, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro and K3.1 Pro Highspeed on the Kimi Code (China) endpoint through the magpie gateway.

  • Unfavorable
    In a carrot-game-adventures run, kimi-k3.1-pro reasoned past the 10-minute per-request timeout.

    Stop a reasoning ranker from crashing a generation, and release 0.3.3. Chrisfoz, GitHub maintainer of the self-optimisation harness, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro (kimi-k3.1-pro) through the Moonshot API in a generation campaign on 24 Oct 2026.

  • Favorable
    Turning reasoning down to low cut the reasoning tokens by almost 90% and the steps by a third, and that is what brought the cost per task under Opus.

    Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Claude Opus 5.5: Pricing, Benchmarks, and What a Coding Task Really Costs. Nadya Dudka and Andrew Dyuzhov, Atomic Agent, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on the Kimi API in Atomic Agent v0.6.9, low and max reasoning effort, three runs each on a Python repair task.

  • Unfavorable
    The wiring is what will cost you an afternoon. Moonshot runs two API endpoints with two model ID schemes

    Kimi K3.1 Pro for Coding: What Changed vs K3 and API Setup. Gedion Kiprotich, ComputingForGeeks, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro wired into Kimi Code CLI 2.3.2 and Claude Code 2.1.310 on an Ubuntu 26.04 VM.

  • Unfavorable
    The new model thinks more than twice as much, which helps it diagnose problems, but its fixes and audits are no better

    Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Kimi K3 for coding: more thinking, same score. Amar Goel, co-founder and CEO of Bito, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro against Kimi K3 inside Claude Code on Bito's agentic coding benchmark.

  • Unfavorable
    know why I keep getting this error with Kimi K3.1 API? evrythign in my Kimi account seems to be in order

    Luke on X: error with Kimi K3.1 API. Luke, X user (previously at OpenClaw), self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro (the post says Kimi K3.1 API) in OpenCode.

  • Unfavorable
    For nearly half the prompts I send to it, it constantly thinks about what the grader or evaluator wants according to some hallucinated rubric, and that causes it to loop for an eternity.

    Is it just me or Kimi K3.1 Pro don't look much better than DeepSeek 4.1 Flash?. TheRealMasonMac, Reddit user, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro through the Moonshot API.

  • Unfavorable
    It made a lot of looptie loops when reasoning, results where ok

    Is it just me or Kimi K3.1 Pro don't look much better than DeepSeek 4.1 Flash?. pCute_SC2, Reddit user, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro.

  • Unfavorable
    I find it quite hard to make it follow my prompts

    Dev Ed on X: Kimi K 3.1 Pro (max) procedural pixel art test against Opus 5.5. Dev Ed, developer and YouTuber, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro at max effort against Opus 5.5 on procedural pixel art and other tests.

Cost 40%

Speed 21%

  • Unfavorable
    At 51 tokens per second, Kimi K3.1 Pro is notably slow

    Artificial Analysis - Kimi K3.1 Pro. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro (reasoning).

  • Unfavorable
    Slow but efficient… 😅

    Latent Operator on X: Kimi K3.1 Pro vs GPT-6 Luna vs DeepSeek V4.1. Latent Operator, X account that posts visual AI model comparisons, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro against GPT-6 Luna and DeepSeek V4.1 on one visual build task.

  • Unfavorable
    and the latency catch for voice agents

    Pasha S on X: Kimi K3.1 Pro test recap. Pasha S, builds voice AI at Zingaro, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro tested on 24 Oct for coding, vision and long-context recall.

  • Unfavorable
    Speed: 22 inutes (everybody else 2 to 6 min max)

    Jeremy Chone on X: Kimi K3.1 is SO SLOW. Jeremy Chone, X user who runs production Rust services at BriteSnow, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro (the post says Kimi K3.1) on his own coding task, against Argon, Opus 5.5 and GPT-6.1 Sol.

  • Unfavorable
    The new Kimi K3.1 is so slow

    Aliaksei Zelianouski on X: The new Kimi K3.1 is so slow. Aliaksei Zelianouski, software engineer (15 years) building AI agents, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro (the post says Kimi K3.1) through the Moonshot API with about 8k context, high and low reasoning effort.

  • Favorable
    So far K3.1 pro is almost twice as fast as k3 on our benchmark.

    Kimi K3.1 Pro and K3.1 Pro Highspeed. pcwelder, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro against Kimi K3 on their own benchmark.

  • Favorable
    It's also faster than both.

    Kimi K3.1 Pro and K3.1 Pro Highspeed. minimaxir, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on the Artificial Analysis index, as read by the commenter.

  • Unfavorable
    Much slower than both though.

    Kimi K3.1 Pro and K3.1 Pro Highspeed. dom96, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on his KillSwitch adversarial programming language benchmark.

  • Unfavorable
    Quite slow in our exam.

    Kimi K3.1 Pro and K3.1 Pro Highspeed. chriddyp, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on Plotly's data analytics benchmark.

  • Unfavorable
    btw double the price for 67 TPS... Hardly 'nitro'.

    Kimi K3.1 Pro and K3.1 Pro Highspeed. keyle, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro Highspeed on OpenRouter.

  • Favorable
    this is really fast than opus 5.5

    Kimi K3.1 Pro and K3.1 Pro Highspeed. aojharaj2004, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro (launch thread on Hacker News).

  • Unfavorable
    It's also slow. A typical question took 2.5 minutes , the second-slowest median on our leaderboard

    Kimi K3.1 Pro Benchmark Results for Data Analysis. Plotly, maker of Plotly Studio and Dash, on its DataAnalyticsBench, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro (standard, through OpenRouter) on Plotly's 43-question data analytics exam.

  • Unfavorable
    yes, very slow. theres a high speed option but it uses up usage faster

    Kimi K3.1 Pro - Speed High, just very slow?. JayoTree, Reddit user, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro in the Kimi app, with and without the high speed option.

  • Unfavorable
    Switching to 2.8 is actually much faster.

    Kimi K3.1 Pro - Speed High, just very slow?. Stigern, Reddit user, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro with the Speed High option on, against Kimi K2.8.

  • Unfavorable
    Also it's slow as hell

    Even the ultra subscription is unusable for coding, or is it just me?. ryudice, Reddit user, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on a Kimi subscription for coding.

  • Unfavorable
    Even at low effort, K3.1 Pro took about twice as long as Opus on this task, mostly because it makes more calls.

    Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Claude Opus 5.5: Pricing, Benchmarks, and What a Coding Task Really Costs. Nadya Dudka and Andrew Dyuzhov, Atomic Agent, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on the Kimi API in Atomic Agent v0.6.9, low and max reasoning effort, three runs each on a Python repair task.

  • Unfavorable
    It's slow. A long session took 28.2 minutes, against 6.8 for Sonnet 5.5 and 17.2 for Opus 5.5.

    Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Claude Opus 5.5 vs Sonnet 5.5 for coding. Amar Goel, co-founder and CEO of Bito, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro inside Claude Code on Bito's agentic coding benchmark, 8 long and 16 short sessions on launch day.

  • Unfavorable
    117 tokens/s Faster than 19 of 49 others

    Kimi K3.1 Pro Benchmarks, Pricing and Speed | Stealth Models. Stealth Models (StealthMark), independent benchmark site, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on StealthMark, priced and speed-tested through the Kimi API and OpenRouter.

  • Unfavorable
    Kimi averaged 125.6 seconds per task, compared with 26 seconds for Claude Fable 5.1 and 19.7 seconds for Claude Opus 5.5.

    Are You Overspending on Closed AI Models? Kimi K3.1 Pro Just Ranked #4 in Accounting. John Iwuozor, Content Lead, Finance and Research at DualEntry, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on the DualEntry Accounting AI Benchmark, 101 cases, three runs each.

  • Unfavorable
    it takes ages to respond per turn

    Is it just me or Kimi K3.1 Pro don't look much better than DeepSeek 4.1 Flash?. hurrdurrmeh, Reddit user, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro against DeepSeek V4.1 Flash API on a coding problem.

  • Favorable
    So, clearly, Kimi has improved in terms of execution speed. It feels faster than its previous models.

    The Bugged Dev on X: My honest take on Kimi K3.1 Pro. The Bugged Dev, X user and developer, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on the Kimi Vivace plan against Claude Opus 5.5 on the $100 Claude plan, one 3D environment task.

  • Unfavorable
    Kimi K3.1 Pro also takes its time. Its median request took about 22 seconds per image

    Kimi K3.1 Pro is now available for auto-annotation in Ultralytics Platform. Glenn Jocher, founder and CEO of Ultralytics, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro at high reasoning effort on the Ultralytics VLM Leaderboard (360 images from 36 detection datasets).

Reliability 8%

  • Unfavorable
    I burned a 5-hour Max window in 7 minutes before I could finish one comparison

    Guta on X: K3.1 Pro quota issues. Guta, X user and entrepreneur, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on the Kimi Max subscription plan.

  • Unfavorable
    10-15% of requests with about 8k context are timing out (60+ seconds)

    Aliaksei Zelianouski on X: The new Kimi K3.1 is so slow. Aliaksei Zelianouski, software engineer (15 years) building AI agents, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro (the post says Kimi K3.1) through the Moonshot API with about 8k context, high and low reasoning effort.

  • Unfavorable
    The logs show: "429 You've reached your 5-hour usage limit."

    Ask HN: Kimi Code hit its 5-hour limit after $1.37 of API usage. waximabbax, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro Standard on the $19 Kimi Code plan through the official CLI v2.3.1.

  • Unfavorable
    hit my 5-hour limit with one prompt on default settings (max effort) in their CLI harness

    Kimi K3.1 Pro and K3.1 Pro Highspeed. willmorrison, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on the $100/month Kimi subscription in the Kimi CLI at default max effort (launch thread).

  • Unfavorable
    Still burning through the 5-hour rate limit way too quickly

    Kimi K3.1 Pro and K3.1 Pro Highspeed. sail0rm00n, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on the $40 Kimi plan.

  • Favorable
    (and anecdotally, more reliable/accessible)

    IBM CEO says open weight models are now good and cheap on-prem. rglover, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Kimi K3 and Kimi K3.1 Pro as a daily driver, human in the loop.

  • Unfavorable
    this is literally all my session on a single prompt and screen

    Even the ultra subscription is unusable for coding, or is it just me?. LessComplexity, Reddit user, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro at max with swarm on, on the Kimi Ultra subscription.

  • Unfavorable
    I burned through my 5 hour window multiple times (each time in about an hour) and went through my weekly window in less than a full day.

    Even the ultra subscription is unusable for coding, or is it just me?. CrimsonBolt33, Reddit user, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on the Allegro (Ultra) plan in China, auditing a project.

  • Unfavorable
    Kimi's API was clearly getting hammered after launch ("engine is currently overloaded" over and over).

    Let Kimi K3.1 Pro build an F-22 hangar in Three.js by itself. Came back 38 minutes later to this. pzarevich, Reddit user running the AgenC Core harness, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro at max effort in the AgenC Core agent harness, one prompt, no help.

  • Unfavorable
    Blew my 5h usage limit with 1 simple task and 1 medium task. And it did not even complete the medium sized task.

    Introducing Kimi K3.1 Pro: our most capable 3T-class open-weight model. mateszhun, Reddit user, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on the $19 Kimi plan.

  • Unfavorable
    I subscribed to $99 a month plan and within 47 minutes with one session (not asking for swarms or anything) was limited by 5-hour quota.

    Kimi K3.1 Pro and K3.1 Pro Highspeed. johnmlussier, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on the $99/month Kimi subscription, one session (launch thread).

  • Unfavorable
    cut quota by 80% when K2.7 launched and then even further when K3 and K3.1 launched.

    Kimi K3.1 Pro and K3.1 Pro Highspeed. try-working, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro on a Kimi annual subscription, quota tracked across the K2.7, K3 and K3.1 launches.

  • Unfavorable
    6.4% of its requests didn't finish within Ultralytics Platform's 115-second limit, up from 1.7% for Kimi K3

    Kimi K3.1 Pro is now available for auto-annotation in Ultralytics Platform. Glenn Jocher, founder and CEO of Ultralytics, Oct 24, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro at high reasoning effort on the Ultralytics VLM Leaderboard (360 images from 36 detection datasets).