GPT-6 Luna vs Kimi K3
Which one, when
Both models sit at roughly the same context scale (1,050,000 tokens for gpt-6-luna versus 1,048,576 for kimi-k3), so the real split is price, output length and inputs: kimi-k3 costs $3 per million input and $15 per million output, 30x gpt-6-luna's $0.1 and $0.5, and 30x on cache reads too ($0.3 versus $0.01). Pick gpt-6-luna for high-volume text and image work where you also want the option to turn thinking off. Pick kimi-k3 when you need video input or a single response up to 1,048,576 tokens, far beyond gpt-6-luna's 128,000 cap.
Benchmarks
Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
Pricing
| GPT-6 Luna | Kimi K3 | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $0.1 | $3 | 0.033× |
| Output / 1M tokens | $0.5 | $15 | 0.033× |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | $0.01 | $0.3 | 0.033× |
| 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 74 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)
Capabilities
| GPT-6 Luna | 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-6 Luna | Kimi K3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Input modalities | text image | text image video |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | - |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-05 | - |
| 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 Luna · Kimi K3
One prompt, both models - measured through the gateway
GPT-6 Luna passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning typically makes the model process more information and generate more internal tokens before producing its answer. Because usage is billed by tokens—and reasoning may also route requests to a more expensive model—the cost per request can rise sharply. If request volume stayed similar, that higher cost per request could explain why the bill doubled.
out 117 tok (+48 thinking) latency 3.4 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-6 Luna 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 code counted matching *adjacent pairs* rather than items, so a run of length `n` was reported as `n - 1`, and a single-item input returned `0`. This version counts the current item as part of each run and updates `best` at every index, including the last; it returns `0` for an empty input.
out 514 tok (+356 thinking) latency 6.9 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 Luna passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "Withheld pending the Q4 close"
{"company":"Meridian Robotics","quarter":"September quarter","revenue_usd_m":412,"growth_pct":null,"guidance":"Withheld pending the Q4 close"}
out 161 tok (+119 thinking) latency 21.7 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 Luna passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Introducing Prompt Cache, a new API gateway feature that recognizes repeat prompt prefixes and reuses provider-side cached context across supported models. Teams can route requests to different AI providers while preserving eligible cache hits, reducing redundant input processing and helping lower latency and token costs. Configure cache policies in one place, monitor hit rates by provider, and keep existing client integrations unchanged. The gateway applies provider-specific rules automatically, so developers do not need to build separate caching logic for each endpoint. Which workflows could benefit from faster responses and predictable spend? Prompt Cache is available today in preview for eligible accounts, with usage details, supported providers, and setup guidance in the dashboard. Start with one route, compare results, then expand.
out 959 tok (+813 thinking) latency 14.6 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-luna",
# 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-luna",
// 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-luna",
# "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-luna",
// 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-luna")
// .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 Luna or Kimi K3?
GPT-6 Luna is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($0.1 vs $3, 30× 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-6 Luna 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-6 Luna 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.