Compare / Kimi K3.1 Pro vs GPT-6.1 Terra
Kimi K3.1 Pro vs GPT-6.1 Terra
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 83 results on 5 sources that measured both models.
Moonshot AIKimi K3.1 Pro
OpenAIGPT-6.1 Terra
Kimi K3.1 Pro wins 2220 too close to callGPT-6.1 Terra wins 41
Of the 83 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 5 November 2026 (catalogue release 2026-11-05-44c5fb63d296). See also Moonshot AI vs OpenAI, every model from both labs.
Kimi K3.1 Pro or GPT-6.1 Terra? The short answer
Pick GPT-6.1 Terra: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 83 against 56) and costs less.
- Spring Prompt overall: Kimi K3.1 Pro 56, GPT-6.1 Terra 83 (out of 100; how the score works).
- GPT-6.1 Terra is cheaper to run: $0.004 against $0.045 per product listing on CatalogBench (13 times less).
- GPT-6.1 Terra is newer: released 26 Oct 2026, against 23 Oct 2026 for Kimi K3.1 Pro.
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: GPT-6.1 Terra does better for user surveys and marketing planning.
Head to head
56
Spring Prompt overall
83
$4.00
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$2.00
1,048,576
Context window, tokens
1,050,000
Every fact side by side
| Kimi K3.1 Pro | GPT-6.1 Terra | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $2.00 in · $10.00 out | $1.00 in · $5.00 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $4.00 | $2.00 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $3.60 (InferenceNet, MXFP4) | $2.00 (Azure) |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.045 | $0.004 |
| Cached input, per million | – | $0.050 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | – | – |
| Spring Prompt overall | 56 | 83 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | – | – |
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens | 1,050,000 tokens |
| Released | 23 Oct 2026 | 26 Oct 2026 (newer) |
| Weights | Open | Closed |
| Developer based in | China | the US |
Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.
Which is better for what
Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.
Product listingsTurning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live
not measured
4 of 27
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is
12 of 28
6 of 28
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled
16 of 17
5 of 17
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending
3 of 28
1 of 28
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess)
23 of 31
16 of 31
Their slides, side by side
The same brief for both: Manchester store investment review for Hearthside Coffee, an invented company. First slide of each deck from DeckBench.
From our research
Every shared result
Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.
| Measure | Kimi K3.1 Pro | GPT-6.1 Terra |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per game · Bullet 60sUS dollars, lower is better 27 · 26 of 36 measured | $0.0175low reasoning | $0.0172low reasoning |
| Ladder Elo · Bullet 60sladder Elo, higher is better 29 · 23 of 36 measured | 147low reasoning | 358low reasoning |
| Games lost on time · Bullet 60s% of games, lower is better 32 · 28 of 36 measured | 87.5%low reasoning | 75.0%low reasoning |
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 26 · 8 of 28 measured | $0.0454 | $0.0036 |
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 1 · 27 of 28 measured | 100.0% | 98.2% |
| Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 1 · 25 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 1.8% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 26 · 15 of 28 measured | $0.54 | $0.0672 |
| Deck ratingrating, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 12 · 6 of 28 measured | 1,247 | 1,344 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 8 · 1 of 28 measured | 66.7% | 100.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 3 · 1 of 28 measured | 55.1 | 58.4 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 7 · 1 of 28 measured | 67.6 | 69.4 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 2 · 1 of 28 measured | 58.2 | 59.1 |
| SurveyBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Analysis ratingrating, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other analysis was; the win rate counts wins against whichever analyses a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 16 · 5 of 17 measured | 608 | 1,273 |
| Cost per taskUS dollars, lower is better 17 · 7 of 17 measured | $0.74 | $0.0569 |
| Analysis scorepoints of 100, higher is better 16 · 4 of 17 measured | 14.5 | 91.6 |
Show all 83 results (68 more)
| Measure | Kimi K3.1 Pro | GPT-6.1 Terra |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 2 results | ||
| Invalid moves · Bullet 60s% of moves, lower is better 1 · 1 of 36 measured | 0.0%low reasoning | 0.0%low reasoning |
| Median move time · Bullet 60smilliseconds, lower is better 36 · 30 of 36 measured | 5.0 slow reasoning | 2.8 slow reasoning |
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 27 results | ||
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 26 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 26 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Content quality% of checks, higher is better 1 · 9 of 28 measured | 98.9% | 97.7% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 22 · 5 of 28 measured | 95.3% | 98.3% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 1 · 5 of 28 measured | 98.9% | 98.1% |
| Failed outputs% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Failed outputs · sales brief% of products, lower is better 26 · 1 of 28 measured | 3.6% | 0.0% |
| Field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better 2 · 6 of 28 measured | 95.6% | 94.4% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 19 · 12 of 28 measured | 2.1% | 1.5% |
| Missing UK information% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Missing UK information · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Not findable% of products, lower is better 15 · 25 of 28 measured | 5.4% | 10.7% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 13 · 27 of 28 measured | 3.6% | 13.7% |
| Output tokens per producttokens, lower is better 6 · 1 of 6 measured | 3,996 | 457 |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 1 · 6 of 28 measured | 78.6% | 74.4% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 2 · 3 of 28 measured | 75.0% | 74.4% |
| Time per productseconds, lower is better 28 · 9 of 28 measured | 114 | 10.1 |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 1 · 4 of 28 measured | 0.00 | 0.03 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 1 · 3 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 0.6% |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 1.8% | 1.8% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 5 · 3 of 28 measured | 0.21 | 0.09 |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 11 · 5 of 28 measured | 16.1% | 14.9% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 4 · 7 of 28 measured | 14.3% | 14.9% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 5 · 5 of 28 measured | 1.8% | 1.8% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 25 · 5 of 28 measured | 5.4% | 1.8% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 15 results | ||
| Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 14 · 1 of 28 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 26 · 3 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 83.3% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 3 · 5 of 28 measured | 83.9% | 80.8% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 26 · 1 of 28 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 10 · 17 of 28 measured | 71.2% | 48.3% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 26 · 3 of 28 measured | 100.0% | 16.7% |
| Misleading metric used% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Output tokens per decktokens, lower is better 7 · 1 of 7 measured | 51,739 | 12,086 |
| Presentable decks% of tasks, higher is better 13 · 2 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 50.0% |
| Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 8 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 33.3% |
| Time per deckseconds, lower is better 28 · 16 of 28 measured | 1,288 | 135 |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results | ||
| Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 5 · 1 of 28 measured | 36.3 | 48.8 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 3 · 6 of 28 measured | $858,023 | $701,059 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 27 · 10 of 28 measured | $1.60 | $0.11 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 0 | 0 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 4 · 7 of 28 measured | 55.0 | 55.0 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 1 · 2 of 28 measured | $0.72 | $0.71 |
| SurveyBench measured by Spring Prompt · 18 results | ||
| Head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other analysis was; the win rate counts wins against whichever analyses a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 11 · 6 of 17 measured | 35.8% | 59.8% |
| Leading or double-barrelled questions% of tasks, lower is better 6 · 3 of 17 measured | 22.2% | 11.1% |
| Mistaken next steps% of tasks, lower is better 15 · 4 of 17 measured | 77.8% | 11.1% |
| Numbers right% of answers, higher is better 1 · 1 of 17 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Objectives unanswerable% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 8 of 17 measured | 0.0% | 11.1% |
| Output tokens per tasktokens, lower is better 7 · 1 of 7 measured | 70,935 | 8,112 |
| Precision ignored% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 17 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Research scorepoints of 100, higher is better 16 · 4 of 17 measured | 39.2 | 92.2 |
| Sound research% of tasks, higher is better 9 · 3 of 17 measured | 0.0% | 33.3% |
| Stakeholder's view presumed% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 7 of 17 measured | 0.0% | 11.1% |
| Survey plan scorepoints of 100, higher is better 3 · 5 of 17 measured | 97.0 | 93.6 |
| Survey structure% of tasks, lower is better 3 · 8 of 17 measured | 11.1% | 22.2% |
| Time per taskseconds, lower is better 17 · 5 of 17 measured | 1,956 | 92.1 |
| Traps handled% of traps, higher is better 7 · 5 of 17 measured | 93.3% | 94.2% |
| Traps missed% of tasks, lower is better 10 · 3 of 17 measured | 88.9% | 33.3% |
| Unsupported findings% of tasks, lower is better 9 · 1 of 17 measured | 77.8% | 0.0% |
| Wrong numbers% of tasks, lower is better 13 · 1 of 17 measured | 77.8% | 0.0% |
| Wrong recommendation% of tasks, lower is better 17 · 3 of 17 measured | 100.0% | 11.1% |
Compare them with other models
- Moonshot AI vs OpenAIEvery model from both labs, best against best
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Claude Opus 5.5Highest-scoring overall at $3–10 per million tokens
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Gemini 3.8 FlashJust above overall
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Kimi K3Moonshot AI's best other model
- GPT-6.1 Terra vs Claude Opus 5.5Highest-scoring overall available today
- GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 SolJust below overall
Quick answers
Is Kimi K3.1 Pro better than GPT-6.1 Terra?
Pick GPT-6.1 Terra: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 83 against 56) and costs less.
Which is cheaper, Kimi K3.1 Pro or GPT-6.1 Terra?
GPT-6.1 Terra is cheaper to run: $0.004 against $0.045 per product listing on CatalogBench (13 times less).
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Kimi K3.1 Pro or GPT-6.1 Terra?
GPT-6.1 Terra ranks 6 of 28 models on sale for turning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is, against 12 for Kimi K3.1 Pro.
Which is better for user surveys, Kimi K3.1 Pro or GPT-6.1 Terra?
GPT-6.1 Terra ranks 5 of 17 models on sale for planning a user survey and reading its results without being misled, against 16 for Kimi K3.1 Pro.
Which is better for marketing planning, Kimi K3.1 Pro or GPT-6.1 Terra?
GPT-6.1 Terra ranks 1 of 28 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 3 for Kimi K3.1 Pro.
Which is better for speed under pressure, Kimi K3.1 Pro or GPT-6.1 Terra?
GPT-6.1 Terra ranks 16 of 31 models on sale for good decisions against a real clock (fast chess), against 23 for Kimi K3.1 Pro.
Which has the bigger context window, Kimi K3.1 Pro or GPT-6.1 Terra?
GPT-6.1 Terra: 1,050,000 tokens, against 1,048,576 for Kimi K3.1 Pro.
Run Kimi K3.1 Pro and GPT-6.1 Terra on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.