Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Kimi K3
Kimi K3 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Grok Code Fast 1 vs Kimi K3
Updated October 2, 2026. Rank says Kimi K3 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
Kimi K3 has the higher public point estimate, 72.14 versus 34.58. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 1
- Grok Code Fast 1 only
- 1
- Kimi K3 only
- 47
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: Grok Code Fast 1 · Supported: Kimi K3. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Grok Code Fast 1
Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Grok Code Fast 1
Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Grok Code Fast 1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Grok Code Fast 1
Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesCoding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Grok Code Fast 1 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Grok Code Fast 1 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limited
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
19.3Grok Code Fast 161.4Kimi K3
Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8
Kimi K3 has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
1 Grok Code Fast 1 only
1 Shared
47 Kimi K3 only
2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
LiveCodeBench (Vals)Coding
Normalized gap 25.2Grok Code Fast 1:62.0%Kimi K3:87.2%
Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Coding
Directional only- Grok Code Fast 1
- 19.3
- Estimated · #121/144
- Kimi K3
- 61.4
- Supported · #18/144
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 14 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Grok Code Fast 1
- 34.7
- Estimated · #118/171
- Kimi K3
- 67.9
- Supported · #18/171
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- Grok Code Fast 1
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3
- 68.1
- Supported · #8/119
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 12 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Grok Code Fast 1
- 58.7
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Kimi K3
- 65.8
- #18/27
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Grok Code Fast 1
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3
- 89.4
- #1/49
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 3 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Grok Code Fast 1
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Grok Code Fast 1
- 46.8
- #86/125
- Kimi K3
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Grok Code Fast 1
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Grok Code Fast 1 | Kimi K3 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 19.3Estimated · #121/144 | 61.4Supported · #18/144 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 14 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 34.7Estimated · #118/171 | 67.9Supported · #18/171 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 6 public rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | Not ranked | 68.1Supported · #8/119 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 12 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 58.7Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 65.8#18/27 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 89.4#1/49 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 3 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 46.8#86/125 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Grok Code Fast 1
- $0.00095
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K3
- $0.0105
- Fits in one request
Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Grok Code Fast 1
- $0.0145
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K3
- $0.195
- Fits in one request
Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Grok Code Fast 1
- $0.059
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Kimi K3
- $0.27
- Fits in one request
Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower modeled cost
Grok Code Fast 1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGrok Code Fast 1Kimi K3
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Grok Code Fast 1
256K
Kimi K3
1.05M
API model ID
Grok Code Fast 1
Not sourced
Kimi K3
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Grok Code Fast 1
Not published
Kimi K3
$0.3 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
Grok Code Fast 1
Not sourced
Kimi K3
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Grok Code Fast 1
Not sourced
Kimi K3
Not sourced
Provider availability
Grok Code Fast 1
Not sourced
Kimi K3
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Grok Code Fast 1
Non-Reasoning
Kimi K3
Reasoning
Weight access
Grok Code Fast 1
Proprietary
Kimi K3
Pending
License
Grok Code Fast 1
Proprietary
Kimi K3
Pending
Release date
Grok Code Fast 1
2025-08-28
Kimi K3
2026-07-16
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Kimi K3 has the higher public point estimate, 72.14 versus 34.58. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.0145 vs $0.195. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.059 vs $0.27.
- Context tradeoff
- Kimi K3 has the larger documented window (1.05M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Grok Code Fast 1 or Kimi K3?
Kimi K3 has the higher public point estimate, 72.14 versus 34.58. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Grok Code Fast 1 or Kimi K3?
Kimi K3 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 61.4 to 19.3. Grok Code Fast 1 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Grok Code Fast 1 or Kimi K3?
Grok Code Fast 1 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, Grok Code Fast 1 or Kimi K3?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00095 on Grok Code Fast 1 and $0.0105 on Kimi K3; repository review costs $0.0145 and $0.195; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.059 and $0.27. Grok Code Fast 1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Grok Code Fast 1 or Kimi K3?
Kimi K3 has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 256K.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence49 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K388.3%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K391.2%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K395.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K373.2%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K384.2%SourceNot directly comparable
AutomationBench
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K330.8%SourceNot directly comparable
JobBench
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K352.9%SourceNot directly comparable
APEX-Agents
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K337.6%SourceNot directly comparable
SpreadsheetBench 2
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K334.8%SourceNot directly comparable
DECK-Bench
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K373.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K380.9%SourceNot directly comparable
ApprenticeBench
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K318%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Grok Code Fast 170.8%SourceKimi K3—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Grok Code Fast 162.0%SourceKimi K387.2%SourceKimi K3 leads this result
DeepSWE
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K367.5%SourceNot directly comparable
CursorBench 3.2
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K360.8%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierSWE
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K381.2%SourceNot directly comparable
ProgramBench
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K377.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Kimi Code Bench v2
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K372.9%SourceNot directly comparable
sweMarathon
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K342%SourceNot directly comparable
PostTrain Bench
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K336.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MLS-Bench Lite
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K348.3%SourceNot directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K373.7%SourceNot directly comparable
OpenHarmony Bench
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K357.3%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K325.9%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K393.4%SourceNot directly comparable
PostTrainBench v1.1
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K332.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Multimodal
OfficeQA Pro
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K363.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K381.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ Python
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K383.4%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K384.8%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K391.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K394.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision w/ Python
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K397.8%SourceNot directly comparable
BabyVision w/ Python
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K385.7%SourceNot directly comparable
ZeroBench
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K323.0%SourceNot directly comparable
ZeroBench w/ Python
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K341.0%SourceNot directly comparable
WorldVQA ForceAnswer
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K351.0%SourceNot directly comparable
OmniDocBench
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K391.1%SourceNot directly comparable
PerceptionBench
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K358.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K393.5%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA-D
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K393.5%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K356%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K343.5%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K392.9%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K388.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
Gray Swan IPI (15 attempts)
Grok Code Fast 1—Kimi K352.7%SourceNot directly comparable
49 public results · 1 shared
Watch Grok Code Fast 1 vs Kimi K3
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.
Last updated October 2, 2026