Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Kimi K3
Kimi K3 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Kimi K3 vs o3-mini
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 score, 72.14 versus 40.85, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. 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
- Kimi K3 only
- 47
- o3-mini only
- 4
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
Supported: Kimi K3 and o3-miniHow 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
o3-mini
o3-mini 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
o3-mini
o3-mini 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
O3-mini is 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
O3-mini is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limitedCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. o3-mini does not fit this workload in one request. o3-mini has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
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.
61.4Kimi K3—o3-mini
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.
47 Kimi K3 only
1 Shared
4 o3-mini 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.
GPQAKnowledge
Normalized gap 16.3Kimi K3:93.5%o3-mini:77.2%
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.
Knowledge
Like-for-like- Kimi K3
- 67.9
- Supported · #18/171
- o3-mini
- 35.6
- Supported · #115/171
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Kimi K3 leads
Agentic
Not comparable- Kimi K3
- 68.1
- Supported · #8/119
- o3-mini
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 12 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Kimi K3
- 61.4
- Supported · #18/144
- o3-mini
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 14 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Kimi K3
- 65.8
- #18/27
- o3-mini
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Kimi K3
- 89.4
- #1/49
- o3-mini
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 3 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Kimi K3
- Not ranked
- o3-mini
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Kimi K3
- Not ranked
- o3-mini
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Kimi K3
- Not ranked
- o3-mini
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Kimi K3 | o3-mini | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 67.9Supported · #18/171 | 35.6Supported · #115/171 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 2 public rows | Kimi K3 leads |
| Agentic | 68.1Supported · #8/119 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 12 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 61.4Supported · #18/144 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 14 vs 1 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 65.8#18/27 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 89.4#1/49 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 3 vs 0 weighted 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
- Kimi K3
- $0.0105
- Fits in one request
- o3-mini
- $0.0033
- Fits in one request
o3-mini has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Kimi K3
- $0.195
- Fits in one request
- o3-mini
- $0.0682
- Fits in one request
o3-mini has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Kimi K3
- $0.27
- Fits in one request
- o3-mini
- $0.286
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
o3-mini does not fit this workload in one request. o3-mini 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.
SpecificationKimi K3o3-mini
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Kimi K3
1.05M
o3-mini
200K
API model ID
Kimi K3
Not sourced
o3-mini
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Kimi K3
$0.3 per 1M cached input tokens
o3-mini
Not published
Documented inputs
Kimi K3
Not sourced
o3-mini
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Kimi K3
Not sourced
o3-mini
Not sourced
Provider availability
Kimi K3
Not sourced
o3-mini
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Kimi K3
Reasoning
o3-mini
Reasoning
Weight access
Kimi K3
Pending
o3-mini
Proprietary
License
Kimi K3
Pending
o3-mini
Proprietary
Release date
Kimi K3
2026-07-16
o3-mini
2025-01-31
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 score, 72.14 versus 40.85, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.195 vs $0.0682. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.27 vs $0.286.
- 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, Kimi K3 or o3-mini?
Kimi K3 has the higher public score, 72.14 versus 40.85, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
Which is better for coding, Kimi K3 or o3-mini?
O3-mini is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Kimi K3 or o3-mini?
O3-mini is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, Kimi K3 or o3-mini?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0105 on Kimi K3 and $0.0033 on o3-mini; repository review costs $0.195 and $0.0682; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.27 and $0.286. o3-mini does not fit this workload in one request. o3-mini has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Kimi K3 or o3-mini?
Kimi K3 has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 200K.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence52 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Kimi K388.3%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Kimi K391.2%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Kimi K395.0%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Kimi K373.2%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Kimi K384.2%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
Kimi K330.8%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
JobBench
Kimi K352.9%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
APEX-Agents
Kimi K337.6%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
SpreadsheetBench 2
Kimi K334.8%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
DECK-Bench
Kimi K373.5%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Kimi K380.9%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
ApprenticeBench
Kimi K318%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
Coding
DeepSWE
Kimi K367.5%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
CursorBench 3.2
Kimi K360.8%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE
Kimi K381.2%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
ProgramBench
Kimi K377.8%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
Kimi Code Bench v2
Kimi K372.9%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
sweMarathon
Kimi K342%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
PostTrain Bench
Kimi K336.6%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
MLS-Bench Lite
Kimi K348.3%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Kimi K373.7%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
OpenHarmony Bench
Kimi K357.3%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Kimi K325.9%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Kimi K387.2%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Kimi K393.4%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
PostTrainBench v1.1
Kimi K332.0%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Kimi K3—o3-mini49.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Multimodal
OfficeQA Pro
Kimi K363.3%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Kimi K381.6%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ Python
Kimi K383.4%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Kimi K384.8%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Kimi K391.3%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
MathVision
Kimi K394.3%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
MathVision w/ Python
Kimi K397.8%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
BabyVision w/ Python
Kimi K385.7%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
ZeroBench
Kimi K323.0%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
ZeroBench w/ Python
Kimi K341.0%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
WorldVQA ForceAnswer
Kimi K351.0%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench
Kimi K391.1%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
PerceptionBench
Kimi K358.5%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Kimi K393.5%Sourceo3-mini77.2%SourceKimi K3 leads this result
GPQA-D
Kimi K393.5%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
HLE
Kimi K356%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Kimi K343.5%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Kimi K392.9%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Kimi K388.0%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
MMLU
Kimi K3—o3-mini86.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
Math
AIME 2024
Kimi K3—o3-mini87.3%SourceNot directly comparable
52 public results · 1 shared
Watch Kimi K3 vs o3-mini
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