- https://platform.kimi.ai/docs/guide/kimi-k3-quickstart

- https://platform.kimi.ai/docs/pricing/chat-k3

1M context, pricing is $3/$15 for 1M tokens (cache $0.3), which is extremely high for a Chinese open-weight model, but if it's truly competitive with most of the current frontier and is only behind Fable/Sol, the pricing is justified.

This is 1:1 pricing of Anthropic's Sonnet series (except Sonnet 5 which is currently on discount), and very close to 5.6 Terra pricing (Terra's input is $2.5).

One thing to consider, though: reasoning efficiency matters directly for how expensive a model actually is in real use. GPT's models are extremely reasoning efficient, and some Claude models like Fable at lower effort are as well. So if Sol spends 10K reasoning tokens to do something (at $30/1M) vs Kimi K3 that spends 50K reasoning tokens, Sol would win on cost effectiveness.

> The full model weights of Kimi K3 will be released in the coming days. More details on the architecture, training, and evaluation will be published together with the Kimi K3 technical report.

https://platform.kimi.ai/docs/guide/kimi-k3-quickstart

Assuming experts are uniformly distributed (I’m really not that familiar with the deep details there), that’s 2800/896*16 = 50 billion active parameters just for the active/expert part. Wild stuff, and I’m glad there’s at least some companies still publishing (and pushing, for open-weight models) total parameter count.

And: It sounds very believable that this would result in efficiency gains wrt. to compute necessary for “good”-quality inference. Does anyone know whether there currently even are any SOTA or near-SOTA models that are dense still?

Also very cool to see LatentMoE being picked up by more models (https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.18089)

https://platform.kimi.ai/docs/guide/kimi-k3-quickstart

> K3 pushes the boundary of end-to-end knowledge work. On the GDPval-AA v2 leaderboard, Kimi K3 scores 1687. The benchmark evaluates AI models on real-world tasks across 44 occupations and 9 major industries; Kimi K3 ranks behind only Claude Fable 5 Max and GPT-5.6 Sol Max, and ahead of Claude Opus 4.8 Max at 1600.

> On AA-Briefcase, Kimi K3 scores 1527, ranking second among all models — behind only Claude Fable 5 Max and ahead of GPT-5.6 Sol Max (1495). AA-Briefcase is a private agentic knowledge-work benchmark developed by Artificial Analysis to evaluate frontier agentic capability in long-horizon knowledge work.

Really good benchmark score it seems. Maybe another DeepSeek moment right here.

Combine with the price it will surely more costly than gpt 5.6.

This puts them on the top of the largest open models list:

  Kimi K3            2.8T
  DeepSeek-V4-Pro    1.6T (49B active)
  Kimi K2.6          ~1T (32B active)
  GLM-5.2            754B (40B active)
  DeepSeek-V3.2      685B
  Mistral Large 3    675B

From all the models available to me I'm most happy with Kimi K2.7 (given the cost/performance).

At this pricing, I'll be surprised if it's open.

95 input, 16,658 output = 25 cents! https://www.llm-prices.com/#it=95&ot=16658&ic=3&oc=15 (13,241 of those were reasoning tokens.)

I think that's the most expensive pelican I've rendered through a Chinese model so far.

    Important limits:

    reasoning_effort currently supports only max; K3 always has thinking mode enabled.

    max_completion_tokens defaults to 131072 and can be set up to 1048576.

    temperature=1.0, top_p=0.95, n=1, presence_penalty=0, and frequency_penalty=0 are fixed; omit them from requests.

    Return the complete assistant message unchanged in multi-turn conversations and tool calls.

    Vision input does not support public image URLs. Use base64 or ms://<file-id>, and make content an array of objects.

    Web search is being updated and is not recommended for production workflows in the near term.

Is them pricing at Sonnet level actually give us any information at all at how big Sonnet is or is there too much opacity around inference margins?