On 2026-10-23 (17:15 UTC) the official @Kimi_Moonshot account launched Kimi K3.1 Pro, alongside K3.1 Pro Highspeed (2-3x faster). Both are live on Kimi.ai, Kimi Work, Kimi Code and the Kimi API, and full weights are promised by 2026-11-04. The official tech blog describes it as a post-trained version of K3 with much larger multi-domain joint RL: a 2.8T-total / 104B-active MoE, 1M-token context, multimodal. Vendor-reported scores: 65.7% on Terminal-Bench 4.0 (GPT-6 Astra 58.2%, Claude Opus 5.5 66.4%) and 92.7% on BenchCAD with tools. The Kimi API pricing page lists kimi-k3.1-pro at $2 input, $10 output and $0.20 cached input per million tokens, down from K3 at $3/$15.
Key Takeaways
- ✓2.8T-total / 104B-active MoE, 1M-token context, multimodal; full weights promised by 2026-11-04 (official blog)
- ✓Vendor-reported: 65.7% on Terminal-Bench 4.0, ahead of GPT-6 Astra (58.2%) and just behind Claude Opus 5.5 (66.4%); 61.2% on the internal Kimi Code Bench 3.0 Long-horizon (K3: 55.95%)
- ✓API pricing: kimi-k3.1-pro at $2 input / $10 output / $0.20 cached input per million tokens; Highspeed at $4 / $20 (pricing page)
- ✓On the internal Kimi Hallu Bench Hard stress test, claim-level hallucination fell from 23.4% (K3) to 8.3%; Moonshot notes this is not a daily-use error rate
- ✓Cyber-related data was removed from mid-training and RL for the open-weight release: xdev-bench-hard pass@3 drops from 90.5% (unmitigated checkpoint) to 81.0%

Key Decision Metrics at a Glance
Turn your technical choice into a development budget
Compare 40 dev plans & simulate token costs vs $20/mo subscriptions
Project Links & Resources
Direct AccessIn-Depth Technical Analysis
Background and the problem it targets
The gap between open-weight models and top proprietary models on long-horizon coding and agent work is still the main worry when teams pick a model: closed models are stronger but expensive and send data off-site, while open models are cheap and self-hostable but tend to break down on long tasks. Moonshot's Kimi K3 (2.8T parameters, September) already pushed open models to the 3T class. K3.1 Pro is the first upgrade in that line, aiming to bring coding, 3D and finance agent skills close to frontier closed models on the same base while cutting API prices.
Architecture and how it works
According to the official blog, K3.1 Pro is a post-trained version of K3 on the same MoE base: 2.8T total parameters, 104B active per token, a 1M-token context and multimodal input. The gains come mainly from much larger post-training compute: Moonshot optimized the RL framework, long-context inference, training efficiency, sandboxes, rollout scheduling and an environment quality-check platform, then ran joint RL across hundreds of downstream domains. For the open-weight release, cyber-related data was removed from both mid-training and RL to limit offensive exploit capability.
Benchmarks (vendor-reported)
All figures are vendor-reported, with reasoning effort set to max: 65.7% on Terminal-Bench 4.0 versus 58.2% for GPT-6 Astra and 66.4% for Claude Opus 5.5; 61.2% on the internal Kimi Code Bench 3.0 Long-horizon versus 55.95% for K3; 92.7% on BenchCAD with tools, below Claude Opus 5.5 (96.2%) and GPT-6 Astra (95.9%); 64.4 on OfficeQA Pro v2. On an internal hallucination stress test, the claim-level hallucination rate fell from 23.4% to 8.3%. On the xdev-bench-hard cyber eval it scores 81.0% pass@3 (90.5% for the checkpoint without data removal). No independent third-party reproduction yet.
Getting started
It is usable today: pick Kimi K3.1 Pro with the /model command in Kimi Code, or call kimi-k3.1-pro / kimi-k3.1-pro-highspeed on the Kimi API platform, where Zero Data Retention is available. K3.1 Pro costs $2 input, $10 output and $0.20 cached input per million tokens, about a third cheaper than K3 at $3/$15; Highspeed is $4/$20. Enterprise admins must enable it manually. Teams planning to self-host can wait for the weights due by Nov 4 and size deployment on inference stacks such as vLLM that already support K3.
Benchmark side-by-side against alternatives, or calculate monthly token cost vs subscription break-even.
Discussion & Comments
0Sign in to join the discussion
Connect with AI developers to exchange benchmark insights.