Compare / Kimi K3 vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
Kimi K3 vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 60 results on 4 sources that measured both models.
Moonshot AIKimi K3
Moonshot AIKimi K3.1 Pro
Kimi K3 wins 1413 too close to callKimi K3.1 Pro wins 33
Of the 60 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 4 November 2026 (catalogue release 2026-11-04-56cfea57899a).
Kimi K3 or Kimi K3.1 Pro? The short answer
Pick Kimi K3.1 Pro: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 56 against 48) at about the same price.
- Spring Prompt overall: Kimi K3 48, Kimi K3.1 Pro 56 (out of 100; how the score works).
- They cost about the same to run: $0.047 and $0.045 per product listing on CatalogBench.
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Kimi K3.1 Pro does better for marketing planning.
Head to head
48
Spring Prompt overall
56
$6.00
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$4.00
1,048,576
Context window, tokens
1,048,576
Every fact side by side
| Kimi K3 | Kimi K3.1 Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $3.00 in · $15.00 out | $2.00 in · $10.00 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $6.00 | $4.00 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $2.46 (Relace, FP4) | $4.00 (Moonshot AI, MXFP4) |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.047 | $0.045 |
| Cached input, per million | $0.30 cached input | – |
| Intelligence Index | 43.6 | – |
| Spring Prompt overall | 48 | 56 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 41 | – |
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 16 Jul 2026 | – |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Developer based in | China | China |
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
17 of 25
not measured
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is
12 of 26
11 of 26
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled
not measured
13 of 15
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending
11 of 26
3 of 26
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls
39 of 160
not measured
Professional workReal tasks from banking, consulting and law, business documents and freelance projects
24 of 51
not measured
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge
17 of 188
not measured
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality
12 of 173
not measured
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers
27 of 143
not measured
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess)
27 of 29
22 of 29
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 | Kimi K3.1 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per game · Bullet 60sUS dollars, lower is better 32 · 25 of 34 measured | $0.0540low reasoning | $0.0175low reasoning |
| Ladder Elo · Bullet 60sladder Elo, higher is better 31 · 28 of 34 measured | 33low reasoning | 147low reasoning |
| Games lost on time · Bullet 60s% of games, lower is better 33 · 30 of 34 measured | 91.7%low reasoning | 87.5%low reasoning |
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 25 · 24 of 26 measured | $0.0469 | $0.0454 |
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 18 · 1 of 26 measured | 99.4% | 100.0% |
| Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 13 · 1 of 26 measured | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 23 · 24 of 26 measured | $0.45 | $0.54 |
| 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 · 11 of 26 measured | 1,241 | 1,259 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 11 · 7 of 26 measured | 50.0% | 66.7% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 11 · 3 of 26 measured | 44.1 | 55.1 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 12 · 7 of 26 measured | 65.1 | 67.6 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 11 · 2 of 26 measured | 40.2 | 58.2 |
Show all 60 results (48 more)
| Measure | Kimi K3 | Kimi K3.1 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 2 results | ||
| Invalid moves · Bullet 60s% of moves, lower is better 1 · 1 of 34 measured | 0.0%low reasoning | 0.0%low reasoning |
| Median move time · Bullet 60smilliseconds, lower is better 28 · 34 of 34 measured | 2.6 slow reasoning | 5.0 slow reasoning |
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 26 results | ||
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 14 · 1 of 26 measured | 0.6% | 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 24 · 1 of 26 measured | 97.0% | 100.0% |
| Content quality% of checks, higher is better 18 · 1 of 26 measured | 96.4% | 98.9% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 15 · 20 of 26 measured | 96.4% | 95.3% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 15 · 1 of 26 measured | 96.1% | 98.9% |
| Failed outputs% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 26 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Failed outputs · sales brief% of products, lower is better 21 · 24 of 26 measured | 0.6% | 3.6% |
| Field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better 6 · 2 of 26 measured | 94.4% | 95.6% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 25 · 18 of 26 measured | 5.7% | 2.1% |
| Missing UK information% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 26 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Missing UK information · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 26 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Not findable% of products, lower is better 9 · 12 of 26 measured | 4.2% | 5.4% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 8 · 10 of 26 measured | 3.0% | 3.6% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 14 · 1 of 26 measured | 61.3% | 78.6% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 19 · 2 of 26 measured | 14.9% | 75.0% |
| Time per productseconds, lower is better 24 · 26 of 26 measured | 66.6 | 114 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 13 · 1 of 26 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 18 · 1 of 26 measured | 0.98 | 0.00 |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 21 · 1 of 26 measured | 81.6% | 1.8% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 21 · 5 of 26 measured | 3.64 | 0.21 |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 23 · 11 of 26 measured | 24.4% | 16.1% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 20 · 4 of 26 measured | 20.8% | 14.3% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 17 · 5 of 26 measured | 3.0% | 1.8% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 21 · 23 of 26 measured | 4.2% | 5.4% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 14 results | ||
| Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 13 of 26 measured | 0.0% | 16.7% |
| Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 15 · 24 of 26 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 4 · 3 of 26 measured | 81.4% | 83.9% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 26 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 18 · 24 of 26 measured | 16.7% | 33.3% |
| 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 · 9 of 26 measured | 74.5% | 75.6% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 15 · 24 of 26 measured | 66.7% | 100.0% |
| Misleading metric used% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 26 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Presentable decks% of tasks, higher is better 13 · 13 of 26 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 15 · 1 of 26 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 3 · 1 of 26 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Time per deckseconds, lower is better 24 · 26 of 26 measured | 438 | 1,288 |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 19 · 1 of 26 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 26 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results | ||
| Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 13 · 5 of 26 measured | 28.3 | 36.3 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 9 · 3 of 26 measured | $654,270 | $858,023 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 22 · 25 of 26 measured | $1.01 | $1.60 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 1 · 1 of 26 measured | 0 | 0 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 16 · 4 of 26 measured | 54.7 | 55.0 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 12 · 1 of 26 measured | $0.50 | $0.72 |
Compare them with other models
Quick answers
Is Kimi K3 better than Kimi K3.1 Pro?
Pick Kimi K3.1 Pro: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 56 against 48) at about the same price.
Which is cheaper, Kimi K3 or Kimi K3.1 Pro?
They cost about the same to run: $0.047 and $0.045 per product listing on CatalogBench.
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Kimi K3 or Kimi K3.1 Pro?
Kimi K3.1 Pro ranks 11 of 26 models on sale for turning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is, against 12 for Kimi K3.
Which is better for marketing planning, Kimi K3 or Kimi K3.1 Pro?
Kimi K3.1 Pro ranks 3 of 26 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 11 for Kimi K3.
Which is better for speed under pressure, Kimi K3 or Kimi K3.1 Pro?
Kimi K3.1 Pro ranks 22 of 29 models on sale for good decisions against a real clock (fast chess), against 27 for Kimi K3.
Run Kimi K3 and Kimi K3.1 Pro on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.