Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Kimi K3.1 Pro
Kimi K3.1 Pro has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Hy4 vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
Updated November 4, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Share or export
Decision reading
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. 12 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 12
- Hy4 only
- 3
- Kimi K3.1 Pro only
- 33
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: Kimi K3.1 Pro. 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
Hy4
Hy4 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
Hy4
Hy4 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Hy4
Hy4 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
Hy4 and Kimi K3.1 Pro are not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Hy4 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.
—Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro
Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8
The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.
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.
3 Hy4 only
12 Shared
33 Kimi K3.1 Pro only
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.
HLEKnowledge
Normalized gap 10.9Hy4:59.1%Kimi K3.1 Pro:70%MMMU-ProMultimodal
Normalized gap 5.5Hy4:78.6%Kimi K3.1 Pro:84.1%
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.
Agentic
Not comparable- Hy4
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- 73.2
- Supported · #9/135
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 18 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Hy4
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 7 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Hy4
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- 82.5
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Hy4
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- 100.0
- #1/58
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 3 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Hy4
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- 75.1
- Supported · #13/179
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 5 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Hy4
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Hy4
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Hy4
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Hy4 | Kimi K3.1 Pro | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not ranked | 73.2Supported · #9/135 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 18 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 7 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not ranked | 82.5Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 100.0#1/58 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 3 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not ranked | 75.1Supported · #13/179 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 5 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 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
- Hy4
- $0.00208
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- $0.007
- Fits in one request
Hy4 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Hy4
- $0.0492
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- $0.13
- Fits in one request
Hy4 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Hy4
- $0.05009
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- $0.18
- Fits in one request
Hy4 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
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.
SpecificationHy4Kimi K3.1 Pro
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Kimi K3.1 Pro
1.05M
API model ID
Hy4
tencent/hy4
Tencent Cloud TokenHub model pricingKimi K3.1 Pro
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Hy4
$0.042 per 1M cached input tokens
Tencent Cloud TokenHub model pricingKimi K3.1 Pro
$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
Hy4
Not sourced
Kimi K3.1 Pro
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Hy4
Not sourced
Kimi K3.1 Pro
Not sourced
Provider availability
Hy4
Not sourced
Kimi K3.1 Pro
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Hy4
Reasoning
Kimi K3.1 Pro
Reasoning
Weight access
Hy4
Pending
Kimi K3.1 Pro
Open Weight
License
Hy4
Pending
Kimi K3.1 Pro
Open Weight
Release date
Hy4
2026-11-04
Kimi K3.1 Pro
2026-10-23
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
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.0492 vs $0.13. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.05009 vs $0.18.
- Context tradeoff
- Kimi K3.1 Pro has the larger documented window (1.05M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Hy4 or Kimi K3.1 Pro?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Hy4 or Kimi K3.1 Pro?
Hy4 and Kimi K3.1 Pro are not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Hy4 or Kimi K3.1 Pro?
Hy4 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, Hy4 or Kimi K3.1 Pro?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00209 on Hy4 and $0.007 on Kimi K3.1 Pro; repository review costs $0.0492 and $0.13; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.05009 and $0.18. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Hy4 or Kimi K3.1 Pro?
Kimi K3.1 Pro has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 1M.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Hy4
API / mo$2,501
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Kimi K3.1 Pro
API / mo$9,000
Self-host / mo$57,606
Break-even436M/day
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence48 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Hy444.40%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro65.70%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro leads this result
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1
Hy419.8%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro38.1%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro leads this result
HLE w/ tools
Hy459.1%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro70.0%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro leads this result
Agents' Last Exam
Hy441.0%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro43.2%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro leads this result
APEX-Agents
Hy475.2%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro69.4%SourceHy4 leads this result
AutomationBench
Hy456.2%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.1
Hy478.9%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro79.6%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro leads this result
BrowseComp
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro92.1%SourceNot directly comparable
BioMysteryBench
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro80.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam (CLI)
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro44.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Frontier Finance
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro58.6%SourceNot directly comparable
HANDBOOK.md
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro44.6%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro79.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Business Operation
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro37.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Financial Modeling
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro57.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Financial Research
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro70.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Kimi Hallu Bench Hard (tools)
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro8.3%SourceNot directly comparable
ExploitGym
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro20.7%SourceNot directly comparable
MazeBench
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro2%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
DeepSWE
Hy474.9%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro75.5%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro leads this result
sweMarathon
Hy443.8%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro51.7%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro leads this result
ProgramBench
Hy430.0%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 2.0
Hy431.0%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
PostTrainBench v1.2
Hy435.2%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro36.5%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro leads this result
ProgramBench (binary)
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro31.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Kimi Code Bench v2
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro77.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Kimi Code Bench 3.0 Long-horizon
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro61.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Bug Hunt Bench
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro36.0 fixesSourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
Hy478.6%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro84.1%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro leads this result
ZeroBench w/ Python
Hy455.4%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro63.0%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro leads this result
OfficeQA Pro
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro67.4%SourceNot directly comparable
OfficeQA Pro v2
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro64.4%SourceNot directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro0.728SourceNot directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro0.927SourceNot directly comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ Python
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro90%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro93.4%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro89%SourceNot directly comparable
Chartography (tools)
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro90.2%SourceNot directly comparable
BabyVision w/ Python
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro95.4%SourceNot directly comparable
ZeroBench
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro39.0%SourceNot directly comparable
GDP.pdf (Gemini judge)
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro34.6%SourceNot directly comparable
GDP.pdf w/ Python (Gemini judge)
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro85.7%SourceNot directly comparable
PerceptionBench
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro68.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
HLE
Hy459.1%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro70%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro leads this result
GPQA
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro94.2%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA-D
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro94.2%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro51.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Kimi Hallu Bench
Hy4—Kimi K3.1 Pro5.4%SourceNot directly comparable
48 public results · 12 shared
Watch Hy4 vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 6,100+ subscribers.
Last updated November 4, 2026