Free to start

MoonshotAI: Kimi K3 vs OpenAI: GPT-6.1 Sol

Try both on us. Starter credit covers your first requests, then one key routes Kimi K3 and GPT-6.1 Sol. Switch by changing the model name.

Compare routesProviders, price, context, and policy posture in one view.

Use auto when uptime mattersKeep a primary model and let fallback handle provider failures.

Same API shapeUse the OpenAI client and set the model you want.

Practical read

Monthly evidence

MoonshotAI: Kimi K3 has the lower published input-plus-output rate and more Credits provider routes. GPT-6.1 Sol has the larger context window. There is not enough recent probe data to compare speed.

$11.97425/1MMoonshotAI: Kimi K3 cheapest route

$12.66/1MOpenAI: GPT-6.1 Sol cheapest route

980 msMoonshotAI: Kimi K3 fastest measured p50 TTFT via lyceum

not enough dataOpenAI: GPT-6.1 Sol fastest measured p50 TTFT

The price comparison adds each route's rate for one million input tokens and one million output tokens; your cost depends on your input/output mix. Prices and live route measurements can change. Use the monthly reports when you need a stable evidence window, then run a small task-specific eval before choosing a production default.

MoonshotAI: Kimi K3OpenAI: GPT-6.1 Sol

Model idmoonshotai/kimi-k3openai/gpt-6.1-sol

Publisher Kimi OpenAI

AI IQ IQ 127#21 IQ 141#1

Context1,048,576 tokens1,050,000 tokens

Credits provider routes281

Cheapest route$11.97425/1M$12.66/1M

Cached input$0.195175/1M to $1.897945/1M$0.1055/1M to $0.211/1M

Privacy posturehas Confidential route (E2EE + ZDR)has ZDR route

Fastest measured p50 TTFT980 ms via lyceumnot enough data

Highest measured throughput172 tok/s via sail-researchnot enough data

Recent route uptime range84.62% to 100.00%not enough data

Modes chat chat

MoonshotAI: Kimi K3 routes

Overview28 Credits routes
PricingInput, cached input, and output rates
ProvidersAll serving providers

OpenAI: GPT-6.1 Sol routes

Overview1 Credits routes

Related comparisons

Browse every comparison

MoonshotAI: Kimi K3 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.361 combined provider routes
MoonshotAI: Kimi K3 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.260 combined provider routes
MoonshotAI: Kimi K3 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.3 Flash60 combined provider routes
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 vs MoonshotAI: Kimi K354 combined provider routes
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MoonshotAI: Kimi K352 combined provider routes
MoonshotAI: Kimi K3 vs OpenAI: gpt-oss-120b52 combined provider routes
MoonshotAI: Kimi K3 vs Qwen: Qwen3.8 27B47 combined provider routes
MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.6 vs MoonshotAI: Kimi K345 combined provider routes

Production choice

Pick a default model. Keep fallback enabled.

TrustedRouter is useful when you know the model you want, but still need provider rollover, budget limits, usage records, and a prompt path you can verify.

OpenAI clientPython

client = OpenAI(
    base_url="https://api.trustedrouter.com/v1",
    api_key="sk-tr-v1-..."
)

response = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="moonshotai/kimi-k3",
    messages=messages,
)

Questions

Which should I use, MoonshotAI: Kimi K3 or OpenAI: GPT-6.1 Sol?

MoonshotAI: Kimi K3 has the lower published input-plus-output rate and more Credits provider routes. GPT-6.1 Sol has the larger context window. There is not enough recent probe data to compare speed.

Is MoonshotAI: Kimi K3 or OpenAI: GPT-6.1 Sol cheaper?

The current cheapest TrustedRouter route is $11.97425/1M for MoonshotAI: Kimi K3 and $12.66/1M for OpenAI: GPT-6.1 Sol. The comparison uses current catalog prices and updates as provider pricing changes.

Is MoonshotAI: Kimi K3 or OpenAI: GPT-6.1 Sol faster?

Current measured p50 time to first token is 980 ms for MoonshotAI: Kimi K3 and not enough data for OpenAI: GPT-6.1 Sol. These are routed probe measurements, not vendor-advertised speeds, and update as new samples arrive.

Can I test MoonshotAI: Kimi K3 and OpenAI: GPT-6.1 Sol with the same API?

Yes. Use the same OpenAI-compatible TrustedRouter base URL and API key, then change only the model id between moonshotai/kimi-k3 and openai/gpt-6.1-sol. This makes side-by-side evals possible without maintaining two provider integrations.