Kimi reports that K3.1 Pro scored 65.7% on Terminal-Bench 4.0, 92.7% on BenchCAD with tools, and 64.4 on OfficeQA Pro v2. These results come from different harnesses, with some based on internal benchmarks or external references, so they are useful for locating capability areas but cannot be treated as independent win rates under uniform conditions.
Kimi Tech Blog · Read evidenceKimi K3.1 Pro · Reviews and evidence
Which Kimi K3.1 Pro conclusions hold up?
Browse public evaluations by topic, source identity, and evidence type. Different versions, tiers, and harnesses are not treated as directly comparable.
This is a third-party source navigator, not a Tabbit test. Use the original source for live metrics; unknown values remain unknown.
Editorial takeaways
Editorial takeaways
In this page snapshot, Kimi K3.1 Pro has an Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index of 55 (#4/215), placing its quality signal near the top; however, 80.7 token/s, 150M index output tokens, and approximately $2.11 per task indicate that waiting time and output volume are the main costs of long-chain reasoning.
Artificial Analysis · Read evidenceOn its own PlotlyDataAnalyticsBench, Plotly asked the standard Kimi K3.1 Pro to answer 43 synthetic wind-power data questions, getting 42/43 (98%, A); it found all 5 hidden patterns and 3 data-quality issues, but one run cost $13.47 and took a median of 2.5 minutes per question, showing a clear trade-off among accuracy, proactive analysis, and cost and speed.
Plotly Blog · Read evidenceFull reviews and related reading
Selected evidence
OfficialVendor report
Kimi K3.1 Pro official release: Evaluation boundaries for coding, 3D, and finance benchmarks
Kimi reports that K3.1 Pro scored 65.7% on Terminal-Bench 4.0, 92.7% on BenchCAD with tools, and 64.4 on OfficeQA Pro v2. These results come from different harnesses, with some based on internal benchmarks or external references, so they are useful for locating capability areas but cannot be treated as independent win rates under uniform conditions.
SourceKimi Tech Blog
PublishedUnknown
Collected2026-10-24
- Model and version
- Kimi K3.1 Pro. Kimi K3.1 Pro Highspeed is a high-speed variant released on the same day; the scores in this article do not independently establish that it is identical to Pro.
- Environment and client
- Claude-Code, Kimi Code, Kimi API, and the official Kimi Agents/Finance Agent, as specified in the respective footnotes.
- Reasoning and parameters
- Unless otherwise specified, reasoning effort=max, temperature=1.0, and top_p=0.95. The article says the product and API are available; full model weights are scheduled for release by 2026-11-04, so as of the collection date the weights cannot be treated as publicly downloadable.
Media / benchmarkIndependent measurement
Kimi K3.1 Pro: Artificial Analysis independent intelligence index, cost, and speed snapshot
In this page snapshot, Kimi K3.1 Pro has an Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index of 55 (#4/215), placing its quality signal near the top; however, 80.7 token/s, 150M index output tokens, and approximately $2.11 per task indicate that waiting time and output volume are the main costs of long-chain reasoning.
SourceArtificial Analysis
PublishedUnknown
Collected2026-10-24
- Model and version
- The Kimi K3.1 Pro reasoning version; the page notes that a non-reasoning variant may exist.
- Environment and client
- Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index; the speed and latency data are labeled as Kimi first-party provider data. The page charts also show No publicly available API, while the FAQ says there are 2 API providers; both are simply page states at the time of collection.
- Reasoning and parameters
- The page specifications mark Reasoning: Yes; Prompt Options provide Single/Multiple (Multiple only supports 1k tokens) and input lengths of 1k, 10k, and 100k tokens. The options were not switched for this collection, and no rerun was performed.
Media / benchmarkIndependent measurement
Plotly's 43-question data analysis exam: Kimi K3.1 Pro scores 42/43
On its own PlotlyDataAnalyticsBench, Plotly asked the standard Kimi K3.1 Pro to answer 43 synthetic wind-power data questions, getting 42/43 (98%, A); it found all 5 hidden patterns and 3 data-quality issues, but one run cost $13.47 and took a median of 2.5 minutes per question, showing a clear trade-off among accuracy, proactive analysis, and cost and speed.
SourcePlotly Blog
Published2026-10-23
Collected2026-10-24
- Model and version
- Standard Kimi K3.1 Pro; not Kimi K3.1 Pro Highspeed.
- Environment and client
- Plotly's private data-analysis exam; the model was called through OpenRouter, and the original article does not disclose the complete harness, tool schema, or execution logs.
- Reasoning and parameters
- The original article says K3.1 Pro uses the maximum reasoning intensity by default and always reasons, but does not disclose the complete request parameters for this run.
All sources
All sources
OfficialVendor report
Kimi K3.1 Pro official release: Evaluation boundaries for coding, 3D, and finance benchmarks
Kimi reports that K3.1 Pro scored 65.7% on Terminal-Bench 4.0, 92.7% on BenchCAD with tools, and 64.4 on OfficeQA Pro v2. These results come from different harnesses, with some based on internal benchmarks or external references, so they are useful for locating capability areas but cannot be treated as independent win rates under uniform conditions.
SourceKimi Tech Blog
PublishedUnknown
Collected2026-10-24
- Model and version
- Kimi K3.1 Pro. Kimi K3.1 Pro Highspeed is a high-speed variant released on the same day; the scores in this article do not independently establish that it is identical to Pro.
- Environment and client
- Claude-Code, Kimi Code, Kimi API, and the official Kimi Agents/Finance Agent, as specified in the respective footnotes.
- Reasoning and parameters
- Unless otherwise specified, reasoning effort=max, temperature=1.0, and top_p=0.95. The article says the product and API are available; full model weights are scheduled for release by 2026-11-04, so as of the collection date the weights cannot be treated as publicly downloadable.
Media / benchmarkIndependent measurement
Kimi K3.1 Pro: Artificial Analysis independent intelligence index, cost, and speed snapshot
In this page snapshot, Kimi K3.1 Pro has an Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index of 55 (#4/215), placing its quality signal near the top; however, 80.7 token/s, 150M index output tokens, and approximately $2.11 per task indicate that waiting time and output volume are the main costs of long-chain reasoning.
SourceArtificial Analysis
PublishedUnknown
Collected2026-10-24
- Model and version
- The Kimi K3.1 Pro reasoning version; the page notes that a non-reasoning variant may exist.
- Environment and client
- Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index; the speed and latency data are labeled as Kimi first-party provider data. The page charts also show No publicly available API, while the FAQ says there are 2 API providers; both are simply page states at the time of collection.
- Reasoning and parameters
- The page specifications mark Reasoning: Yes; Prompt Options provide Single/Multiple (Multiple only supports 1k tokens) and input lengths of 1k, 10k, and 100k tokens. The options were not switched for this collection, and no rerun was performed.
Media / benchmarkIndependent measurement
Plotly's 43-question data analysis exam: Kimi K3.1 Pro scores 42/43
On its own PlotlyDataAnalyticsBench, Plotly asked the standard Kimi K3.1 Pro to answer 43 synthetic wind-power data questions, getting 42/43 (98%, A); it found all 5 hidden patterns and 3 data-quality issues, but one run cost $13.47 and took a median of 2.5 minutes per question, showing a clear trade-off among accuracy, proactive analysis, and cost and speed.
SourcePlotly Blog
Published2026-10-23
Collected2026-10-24
- Model and version
- Standard Kimi K3.1 Pro; not Kimi K3.1 Pro Highspeed.
- Environment and client
- Plotly's private data-analysis exam; the model was called through OpenRouter, and the original article does not disclose the complete harness, tool schema, or execution logs.
- Reasoning and parameters
- The original article says K3.1 Pro uses the maximum reasoning intensity by default and always reasons, but does not disclose the complete request parameters for this run.
CommunityIndependent measurement
Paweł Huryn: Comparing Kimi K3.1 Pro on bug injection across two repositories
The author planted 105 reproducible bugs in two real repositories and asked the model to find and fix them; in the set of results he published, Kimi K3.1 Pro max scored 36/105, below DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 max at 42.7, Muse Wonder Full 1.0 max at 42, and Opus 5.5 max at 41.7. Kimi's actual billed cost was $13.76, which led the author to conclude that its cost was not attractive.
SourceX
Published2026-10-24
Collected2026-10-24
- Model and version
- Kimi K3.1 Pro; comparators included DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017, Muse Wonder Full 1.0, Opus 5.5, Muse Spark 1.3, and Sonnet 5.5 in the author's later replies.
- Environment and client
- Bug Hunt Bench; the coding benchmark used the Claude Code harness. The author said the Kimi launch post also used Claude Code, while other benchmarks used other harnesses.
- Reasoning and parameters
- The main result is labeled max; the author also published max, xhigh, high, medium, and low results for Opus and Sonnet. The complete system prompt, task list, repository names, sampling parameters, and per-task records were not disclosed.
CommunityPersonal experience
Atomic Agent: A Three.js 3D scene comparison between Kimi K3.1 Pro and GPT-6 Astra
The author had Kimi K3.1 Pro and GPT-6 Astra independently complete a 28-second Avatar-style flying-dragon scene in Three.js inside Atomic Agent using the same prompt. Kimi took longer but used fewer steps; using the older K3's Moonshot rates, the author estimated its cost at $1.1–$1.4, compared with about $2.63 for Astra.
SourceReddit, r/kimi
Published2026-10-24
Collected2026-10-24
- Model and version
- Early-access Kimi K3.1 Pro; GPT-6 Astra as the comparison model.
- Environment and client
- Atomic Agent, which the author described as an open-source Agent they helped develop.
- Reasoning and parameters
- Kimi K3.1 Pro accepts only temperature: 1. The Agent's primary call had sent 0.2; the author forced the primary call to use 1, but the image-review tool still used 0.2. Astra's full parameters were not disclosed.
CommunityPersonal experience
Kimi K3.1 Pro in pi.dev: A 3D pelican case after multiple enhancement rounds
In the pi.dev harness, the author had Kimi K3.1 Pro generate a high-fidelity 3D “pelican riding a bicycle” scene; a single prompt was insufficient, and only after several rounds of “enhance it further” did the author obtain the result shown. The case provides a usable signal about multi-turn Agent workflows, but the iteration counts, budgets, and completion criteria on the two sides were not aligned, so it cannot be called a controlled win for Kimi over Claude Opus 5.5.
SourceReddit, r/aigamedev
Published2026-10-23
Collected2026-10-24
- Model and version
- Kimi K3.1 Pro; the author used a single-generation Claude Opus 5.5 case from its launch as the comparison.
- Environment and client
- pi.dev harness; the specific Agent version, tool permissions, model endpoint, and runtime environment were not specified.
- Reasoning and parameters
- Not specified.
CommunityPersonal experience
Kimi K3.1 Pro: Derya Unutmaz's private coding experience and benchmark gap
Derya Unutmaz says that private testing showed Kimi K3.1's coding performance behind Opus 5.5, Astra, and Gemini Argon, and believes an Opus 5.5 subscription costs less on the same project; however, the original post does not disclose the project, prompts, reasoning levels, environment, pricing method, scores, or reproducible logs, so this is only a personal experience report, not a controlled benchmark, and it cannot independently establish a price disadvantage.
SourceX
Published2026-10-24
Collected2026-10-24
- Model and version
- Associated with Kimi K3.1 Pro, but with a version-label boundary: the main post shortens the name to “Kimi K3.1,” while the author's quoted earlier post explicitly says “Kimi K3.1 Pro”; that earlier post also quotes Kimi's official K3.1 Pro launch post.
- Environment and client
- Not specified; the author only said it was private testing and mentioned the same project, without specifying the client, Agent, API, repository, or toolchain.
- Reasoning and parameters
- Not specified.
CommunityPersonal experience
Kimi K3.1 Pro: Serafim Batzoglou's views on the induction benchmark and Token costs
Based on a screenshot of Challenge100, the author says Kimi K3.1 Pro tied Claude Opus 5 at 21/100, led Qwen 3.8 Max and Muse Spark 1.3, and trailed GPT-5.6 Sol, GPT-6.1 Sol, and Claude Opus 5.5; he also believes Kimi's Token usage makes it more expensive than GPT-6.1 Sol. The post and GitHub pages provide the leaderboard and some protocol details, but they do not publish per-question raw outputs, a complete reproducible experiment package, or a price bill. The information therefore cannot be reclassified as an independently reproduced benchmark by the author, nor treated as a guaranteed ranking.
SourceX
Published2026-10-24
Collected2026-10-24
- Model and version
- Kimi K3.1 Pro; the model ID recorded on the GitHub results page is kimi-k3.1-pro.
- Environment and client
- The GitHub results page records direct calls to Moonshot kimi-k3.1-pro; the client, complete request payload, and service region were not disclosed.
- Reasoning and parameters
- reasoning_effort=max, max_completion_tokens=500000 (including thinking); other sampling and complete request parameters were not specified.
Media / benchmarkPersonal experience
Kimi K3.1 Pro: Hacker News subscription quotas and long-task experience
In the same Kimi K3.1 Pro discussion thread, johnmlussier said that the $99/month plan hit its five-hour quota limit within 47 minutes in a single session; S-E-P, by contrast, said that running K3.1 Pro and K2.8 Preview for eight hours used only 22% of the weekly quota. Both are personal reports and cannot support a unified conclusion about quotas, billing, or model capabilities.
SourceHacker News
Published2026-10-23
Collected2026-10-24
- Model and version
- The parent post discusses Kimi K3.1 Pro and K3.1 Pro Highspeed; the relevant reports explicitly mention K3.1 Pro, while S-E-P also used K2.8 Preview.
- Environment and client
- Subscription plans; the client, Agent harness, account status, and server-side configuration were not specified. S-E-P only said they used codegen (subagents) on an RE project.
- Reasoning and parameters
- Not specified. S-E-P asked whether K3 should be set to the highest thinking level, but did not describe johnmlussier's setting or receive an answer.
CommunityIndependent measurement
Kimi K3.1 Pro: PacBench single-file game artifact and scoring
In PacBench's single-prompt, single-file Pac-Man task, Kimi K3.1 Pro scored 93/100, tying Claude Sonnet 5.5; this Kimi run took about 11 minutes and cost $0.68, with 43k output / 22k thinking, while Sonnet 5.5 took about 14 minutes and cost $1.61. This result describes performance on one specific harness and task only; it does not represent overall coding ability.
SourcePacBench (GitHub Pages; code and data hosted on GitHub)
Published2026-10-23
Collected2026-10-24
- Model and version
- Kimi K3.1 Pro; the request ID was moonshotai/kimi-k3.1-pro, and the actual recorded value was also moonshotai/kimi-k3.1-pro; the metadata identifies its canonical version as moonshotai/kimi-k3.1-pro-20261023.
- Environment and client
- OpenRouter / Claude Code, running in a Cursor cloud VM (Ubuntu 24.04, Claude Code 2.1.303, Node inside the sandbox); no web tools.
- Reasoning and parameters
- high; CLAUDE_CODE_MAX_OUTPUT_TOKENS=128000. OpenRouter was pinned to the Moonshot AI standard endpoint moonshotai/mxfp4, with fallback disabled.
CommunityPersonal experience
Kimi K3.1 Pro: AIPulseDaily's New York scene and subscription quota experience
AIPulseDaily said Kimi K3.1 Pro showed “massive improvements” in a golden-hour city flyover test in New York, but was not as deep as Opus or Sonnet or able to sustain as much effort; one run exhausted the entire five-hour window on its $100 plan within 20 minutes. The post provides only personal observations and an 18-second comparison video, so it cannot establish image quality, model superiority, or quotas for all accounts.
SourceX
Published2026-10-24
Collected2026-10-24
- Model and version
- Kimi K3.1 Pro; the main post explicitly gives this full version name.
- Environment and client
- $100 plan; the product entry point, client, Agent, API, region, and account configuration were not specified.
- Reasoning and parameters
- Not specified. effort maxxing is the author's comparative wording about Opus/Sonnet, not a verifiable parameter value.
Kimi K3.1 Pro
Compare Kimi K3.1 Pro in Tabbit
Model access, features, and permissions depend on your current client account.