GPT-6.1 Terra vs Kimi K3
Which one, when
For prompts up to 272000 input tokens, gpt-6.1-terra has lower input and output rates and optional reasoning. Choose kimi-k3 for video input or exceptionally long single responses; its reasoning remains on.
Benchmarks
GPT-6.1 Terra: the vendor has not published benchmark scores.
Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
Pricing
| GPT-6.1 Terra | Kimi K3 | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $1 | $3 | 0.33× |
| Output / 1M tokens | $5 | $15 | 0.33× |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | $0.05 | $0.3 | 0.17× |
| 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 K3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Tool calling | yes | yes |
| Thinking control | configurable | always on |
| Structured output | yes | 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 K3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Input modalities | text image | text image video |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | 2026-10-26 | 2026-07-16 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-06 | - |
| 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-6.1 Terra · Kimi K3
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 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, 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 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-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 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-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 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-6.1-terra",
# 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-6.1-terra",
// 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-6.1-terra",
# "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-6.1-terra",
// 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-6.1-terra")
// .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-6.1 Terra or Kimi K3?
GPT-6.1 Terra is cheaper on the "Input / 1M tokens" row ($1 vs $3, 3.0× 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 K3 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 K3 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.