GPT-6.1 Terra vs Kimi K2.7 Code
Which one, when
For prompts up to 272000 input tokens, kimi-k2.7-code costs slightly less on input and output and accepts video. Choose gpt-6.1-terra for a much larger context and output budget, or when you need to turn reasoning off.
Benchmarks
GPT-6.1 Terra: the vendor has not published benchmark scores.
Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Moonshot OpenAI Z.ai
Pricing
| GPT-6.1 Terra | Kimi K2.7 Code | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $1 | $0.95 | 1.1× |
| Output / 1M tokens | $5 | $4 | 1.3× |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | $0.05 | $0.19 | 0.26× |
| Cache write | 1.25x (30m) / 2.5x (12h) | - | - |
Rates from the live catalogue at build time; each model page carries the current rate card.
Where they sit · input price per 1M tokens across all 80 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)
Capabilities
| GPT-6.1 Terra | Kimi K2.7 Code | |
|---|---|---|
| Tool calling | yes | yes |
| Thinking control | configurable | always on |
| Structured output | yes | - |
| Prompt caching | implicit + explicit | implicit (automatic) |
| Cache lifetime | at least 30m by default, 12h option on the Responses API | not published |
| Minimum cached prefix | 1,024 tokens | not published |
Specs
| GPT-6.1 Terra | Kimi K2.7 Code | |
|---|---|---|
| Input modalities | text image | text image video |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | 2026-10-26 | 2026-06 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-06 | - |
| Context window | 1.1M | 256K |
| Max output | 128K | 33K |
| Thinking parameter | reasoning.effort |
|
| Accepted values | reasoning.effort
| type
keep
|
| Default | medium | thinking on with Preserved Thinking on |
Specs are transcribed from each vendor’s documentation; a row a vendor does not publish is left out rather than inferred. Full sources: GPT-6.1 Terra · Kimi K2.7 Code
One prompt, both models, measured through the gateway
GPT-6.1 Terra passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning caused the model to process additional internal tokens before producing each answer, even though those tokens are not visible to users. Those tokens are generally billable, increasing the cost per request and potentially doubling the bill even if usage stayed the same. To confirm the cause, compare request counts, model pricing, and token usage—including reasoning tokens—before and after the change.
out 196 tok (+115 thinking) latency 4.6 s
Kimi K2.7 Code passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning mode causes the model to generate an internal chain-of-thought before producing each answer, and that hidden reasoning text is billed like any other output. Those extra reasoning tokens typically add up to much more than the final response itself, so every API call now costs significantly more than before. Because our overall usage volume did not change, the doubled bill reflects that each query consumes roughly twice as many billable tokens.
out 259 tok (+174 thinking) latency 5.4 s
Instruction following (exactly three sentences, so countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.
GPT-6.1 Terra passed · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if len(xs) == 0: 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 code counted matching *adjacent pairs* rather than items, so every nonempty run was undercounted by one, including a single-element input. It did update `best` for matches at the last index, but still undercounted those runs. The fix starts each run at length one and updates `best` as the run grows.
out 331 tok (+172 thinking) latency 6.3 s
Kimi K2.7 Code 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 that the function counts *transitions* between equal neighbors instead of counting the items themselves, so a single-element list never enters the loop and returns `0` instead of `1`. Likewise, resetting `cur` to `0` on a mismatch forgets the current item that starts a new run, which causes runs that end at the last index to be undercounted. Initializing both `best` and `cur` to `1` and resetting `cur` to `1` fixes both issues.
out 410 tok (+222 thinking) latency 9.4 s
Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.
GPT-6.1 Terra passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "Withheld pending the Q4 close"
{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": null, "growth_pct": null, "guidance": "Withheld pending the Q4 close" }
out 317 tok (+261 thinking) latency 6.9 s
Kimi K2.7 Code passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld pending the Q4 close"
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": "withheld pending the Q4 close" } ```
out 721 tok (+663 thinking) latency 13.2 s
Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.
GPT-6.1 Terra passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Meet Prompt Cache, a new API gateway feature that stores reusable prompts across providers, helping teams reduce latency and control costs without changing how they build. When a request matches a cached prompt, the gateway retrieves the stored result instead of sending the same work again. Need to route traffic between models or vendors? Prompt Cache works across supported providers, giving your applications a consistent caching layer as your stack evolves. Set expiration policies, monitor cache performance, and choose which requests qualify through familiar gateway controls. Your team can spend less time repeating requests and more time improving the experiences customers rely on. Start using Prompt Cache today and make every request work harder for your application and your budget.
out 579 tok (+440 thinking) latency 9.1 s
Kimi K2.7 Code passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
We're introducing Prompt Cache for our API Gateway, a new capability that stores prompt responses across multiple AI providers. By caching replies, you reduce redundant calls, lower latency, and cut costs without changing how you build. Teams using several model providers can now reuse identical prompt results instantly, keeping traffic consistent and budgets predictable. Responses are keyed by provider, model, and exact prompt, so you always get the right result. Configure TTL, hit thresholds, and eviction rules from a single dashboard. It fits into your existing routing and requires no code changes. Setup takes minutes and works with your current endpoints. Want to see how much latency and spend you can trim? Check the docs to enable Prompt Cache today.
out 2375 tok (+2235 thinking) latency 38.6 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-6.1-terra",
# model="kimi-k2.7-code", # 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-6.1-terra",
// model: "kimi-k2.7-code", // 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-6.1-terra",
# "model": "kimi-k2.7-code", # 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-6.1-terra",
// Model: "kimi-k2.7-code", // 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-6.1-terra")
// .model("kimi-k2.7-code") // 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-6.1 Terra or Kimi K2.7 Code?
Kimi K2.7 Code is cheaper on the "Input / 1M tokens" row ($0.95 vs $1, 1.1× apart). Other rows may point the other way; the table above carries the full rate card, and real cost depends on your mix.
Can I A/B test GPT-6.1 Terra against Kimi K2.7 Code without two integrations?
Yes. Both are served through the same OpenAI-compatible endpoint with one API key. Switching is a one-line change to the model id, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.
Do GPT-6.1 Terra and Kimi K2.7 Code support prompt caching?
Yes. Both bill cache 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.