GPT-5.6 Sol vs Kimi K3
Which one, when — curated verdict, not a benchmark table
The two share an effectively identical context window (1050000 vs 1048576 tokens), so the trade-off is price, output length and inputs: kimi-k3 bills $3/$15 per million against $5/$30 for gpt-5.6-sol, 2x less on output, accepts video as well as text and images, and can return up to 1048576 tokens versus 128000. Choose gpt-5.6-sol when you want reasoning you can switch off for short, cheap turns plus its explicit vision flag and $0.5 cached reads; choose kimi-k3 for video input, very long single responses, or high-volume text work where always-on thinking is fine.
Pricing
| GPT-5.6 Sol | Kimi K3 | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $5 | $3 | 1.7× |
| Output / 1M tokens | $30 | $15 | 2× |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | $0.5 | $0.3 | 1.7× |
| Cache write | no separate charge | — | — |
Rates from the live catalog at build time; each model page carries the current card.
Where they sit — input price per 1M tokens across all 63 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)
Capabilities
| GPT-5.6 Sol | Kimi K3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Tool use | yes | yes |
| Thinking control | configurable | always on |
| Structured output | yes | yes |
| Prompt caching | implicit (automatic) | implicit (automatic) |
| Cache lifetime | 5–10m, up to 1h | not published |
| Minimum cached prefix | 1024 tokens | not published |
Specs
| GPT-5.6 Sol | Kimi K3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Input modalities | text image | text image video |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | 2026-07-09 | — |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-02 | — |
| Context window | 1.1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 1M |
| Thinking parameter | reasoning.effort | reasoning_effort (top-level; the thinking object is not accepted) |
| Accepted values | reasoning.effort
| reasoning_effort
|
| Default | medium | max |
Specs are transcribed from each vendor’s documentation; a row a vendor does not publish is left out rather than inferred. Full sources: GPT-5.6 Sol · Kimi K3
One prompt, both models — measured through the gateway
GPT-5.6 Sol passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning makes the model generate additional internal tokens before producing an answer, so each request consumes more billable compute. Reasoning may also increase response length, latency, tool calls, and retries, further raising per-request cost. In short, usage volume may be unchanged, but the cost per task increased enough to double the bill.
out 111 tok (+34 thinking) latency 2.3 s
Kimi K3 passed · 3 sentences
Reasoning models don't just answer questions—they "think" first, generating long internal chains of step-by-step logic before producing a response. Those hidden thinking steps are billed as output tokens (the most expensive kind, typically 3–5x the price of input tokens), and a single query can generate thousands of them even when the visible answer is only a paragraph long. So you're paying for dramatically more compute per request: the bill doubled because the model does far more work behind the scenes, not because usage increased.
out 755 tok (+637 thinking) latency 20.8 s
Instruction following (exactly three sentences — countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.
GPT-5.6 Sol passed · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` The original function counted equal *adjacencies* rather than items, so a run of length one produced `0` and every longer run was undercounted by one. Initializing `cur` and `best` to `1` for nonempty input makes them represent item counts, resetting `cur` to `1` starts a new run at the current item, and updating `best` on every iteration ensures a run reaching the final index is included.
out 316 tok (+135 thinking) latency 5.2 s
Kimi K3 passed · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 best = max(best, cur) else: cur = 1 return best ``` The bug is a fencepost error: `cur` counts *matching adjacent pairs* rather than *items in the run*, because it starts at 0 and only increments when `xs[i] == xs[i - 1]`. A run of length L contains L−1 equal pairs, so every run was undercounted by exactly one. For a single-element list (a run of length 1) the loop never runs and the function returns 0 instead of 1; likewise any run ending at the last index — e.g. the two `2`s in `[1, 2, 2]` — reported 1 instead of 2, making it look like no run existed at all. […]
out 1837 tok (+1547 thinking) latency 47.2 s
Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.
GPT-5.6 Sol passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld pending the Q4 close"
{"company":"Meridian Robotics","quarter":"September quarter","revenue_usd_m":412,"growth_pct":"11+","guidance":"withheld pending the Q4 close"}
out 194 tok (+147 thinking) latency 3.2 s
Kimi K3 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null
{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null }
out 924 tok (+863 thinking) latency 25.9 s
Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.
GPT-5.6 Sol passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Today, we’re introducing Provider Prompt Cache, a new API gateway feature that reuses prompt prefixes across supported AI providers, reducing latency, token costs, and duplicated processing. Teams can define cache policies once, route requests dynamically, and preserve provider flexibility without rewriting application logic. Switching models during testing or failover? The gateway identifies eligible prompt segments, applies provider-specific caching controls, and reports hits, misses, savings, and expiration details through unified logs and metrics. Configurable TTLs, tenant isolation, encryption, and cache-bypass options help teams balance performance, privacy, and freshness for every workload. Provider Prompt Cache is available today in beta through the dashboard and API, with SDK examples and migration guidance included. […]
out 733 tok (+564 thinking) latency 7.7 s
Kimi K3 passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Meet Prompt Cache, a new API gateway capability that stores prompt responses and serves them across OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Azure endpoints. It matches requests by model, prompt hash, tools, temperature, and tenant policy, so repeated work returns fast while sensitive contexts stay isolated. Teams set TTLs, stale rules, encryption scopes, and bypass flags per route. Analytics show hit rate, latency saved, token spend avoided, and drift risk by provider. What changes for developers? Keep one integration, add cache headers, and watch fallback logic respect consent, residency, and audit needs. During rollout, canary keys compare fresh answers with cached copies before promotion. Prompt Cache cuts vendor calls, steadies p95 latency, and gives platform owners controls for cost, quality, and compliance.
out 1527 tok (+1354 thinking) latency 37.9 s
Constraint obedience (word budget, banned-word list, the single question), style fingerprint, and length control.
Switch between them with one line
Both ids are in every tab below — the highlighted pair of lines is the only edit. Same endpoint, same key, same request shape.
from openai import OpenAI
client = OpenAI(
base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
api_key="sk-syn-...",
)
resp = client.chat.completions.create(
model="gpt-5.6-sol",
# model="kimi-k3", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)import OpenAI from "openai";
const client = new OpenAI({
baseURL: "https://synthorai.io/v1",
apiKey: "sk-syn-...",
});
const resp = await client.chat.completions.create({
model: "gpt-5.6-sol",
// model: "kimi-k3", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages: [{ role: "user", content: "Summarize this diff" }],
reasoning_effort: "medium",
});
console.log(resp.choices[0].message.content);curl https://synthorai.io/v1/chat/completions \
-H "Authorization: Bearer sk-syn-..." \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"model": "gpt-5.6-sol",
# "model": "kimi-k3", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}],
"reasoning_effort": "medium"
}'package main
import (
"context"
"fmt"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3/option"
)
func main() {
client := openai.NewClient(
option.WithBaseURL("https://synthorai.io/v1"),
option.WithAPIKey("sk-syn-..."),
)
resp, _ := client.Chat.Completions.New(context.TODO(), openai.ChatCompletionNewParams{
Model: "gpt-5.6-sol",
// Model: "kimi-k3", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
Messages: []openai.ChatCompletionMessageParamUnion{
openai.UserMessage("Summarize this diff"),
},
ReasoningEffort: openai.ReasoningEffortMedium,
})
fmt.Println(resp.Choices[0].Message.Content)
}import com.openai.client.OpenAIClient;
import com.openai.client.okhttp.OpenAIOkHttpClient;
import com.openai.models.chat.completions.*;
import com.openai.models.ReasoningEffort;
OpenAIClient client = OpenAIOkHttpClient.builder()
.baseUrl("https://synthorai.io/v1")
.apiKey("sk-syn-...")
.build();
ChatCompletion resp = client.chat().completions().create(
ChatCompletionCreateParams.builder()
.model("gpt-5.6-sol")
// .model("kimi-k3") // uncomment this line, comment the one above
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));FAQ
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.6 Sol or Kimi K3?
Kimi K3 is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($3 vs $5, 1.7× apart). Other rows may point the other way — the table above carries the full card, and real cost depends on your mix.
Can I A/B test GPT-5.6 Sol against Kimi K3 without two integrations?
Yes. Both are served through the same OpenAI-compatible endpoint with one API key — switching is a one-line model-string change, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.
Do GPT-5.6 Sol and Kimi K3 support prompt caching?
Yes — both bill cached reads below their input rate, so warm-prefix workloads cost less than the list rates suggest. The exact cache-read rows are in the pricing table above.