Grok 4.6 vs Kimi K3.1 Pro Together
Full profiles: Grok 4.6 (SpaceXAI) and Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (Moonshot AI): every benchmark, price and rank.
Updated · Data from 8 sources
As of 9 Nov 2026, Grok 4.6 and Kimi K3.1 Pro Together are neck and neck on quality (60.5 vs 60.5 on the BenchLeader Index, inside the ±4.1 margin). Kimi K3.1 Pro Together leads in every category we measure both in.
Key facts (as of 9 Nov 2026)
- Grok 4.6 scores 60.5 on the BenchLeader Index and Kimi K3.1 Pro Together scores 60.5 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
- Grok 4.6 costs $3.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 9 Nov 2026).
- Of the 4 benchmarks both models have, Kimi K3.1 Pro Together leads 4 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
Grok 4.6 benchmarks high SpaceXAI
Kimi K3.1 Pro Together benchmarks max Moonshot AIAdd a third modelWhich to pick for…
The pick's numbers come first. Category scores on the BenchLeader scale (50 is the average model, 15 points one standard deviation). High confidence means a lead of half a standard deviation or more; under one point is called either.
| Use case | Pick | Why | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maths | Kimi K3.1 Pro Together | 66 vs 63 category score; OTIS Mock AIME 100.0% vs 97.8% | Medium |
| Reasoning | Kimi K3.1 Pro Together | 67 vs 64 category score; GPQA Diamond 94.2% vs 94.0% | Medium |
| Knowledge | Kimi K3.1 Pro Together | 68 vs 60 category score; SimpleQA Verified 62.2% vs 49.3% | High |
| Chat quality (human preference) | – | Only Grok 4.6 has an Arena rating (64 category score) | Not comparable |
| High volume on a budget | Neither flagship | A smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs | – |
Key differences
- Grok 4.6 (high) and Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (max) are neck and neck on quality (60.5 vs 60.5, within the ±4.1 margin).
- Grok 4.6 (high) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, human preference, long context, multimodal.
- Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (max) is stronger in knowledge, maths, reasoning.
At a glance
| Spec | Grok 4.6 | Kimi K3.1 Pro Together |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | SpaceXAI | Moonshot AI |
| Released | 11 Aug 2026 | 23 Oct 2026 |
| Context window (tokens) | 500,000 | – |
| Compared at | Grok 4.6 (high) | Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (max) |
| Open weights | No | No |
| Price in / out / cached input per 1M | $2.00 / $6.00 / $0.500 | – |
Category by category
Category scores on the BenchLeader scale: 50 is the average evaluated model, 15 points is one standard deviation. A gap under one point is called level.
| Category | Grok 4.6 (high) | Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 63.6 | 67.1 | Kimi K3.1 Pro Together |
| Coding | 61.4 | – | not comparable |
| Agents & tools | 57.9 | – | not comparable |
| Maths | 63.4 | 65.8 | Kimi K3.1 Pro Together |
| Knowledge | 59.8 | 67.6 | Kimi K3.1 Pro Together |
| Human preference | 64.2 | – | not comparable |
| Multimodal | 60.0 | – | not comparable |
| Long context | 64.9 | – | not comparable |
On one chart
Each domain on the index's own scale, where 50 is an average model. Click a domain to see the benchmarks behind it. Pick up to 5 models from the list.
Not drawn, measured for fewer than two of these models: Coding, Agents & tools, Instruction following, Long context, Multimodal, Human preference.
Where sources disagree
Across the 4 benchmarks both have, Grok 4.6 leads 0, Kimi K3.1 Pro Together leads 4.
| Overall index | Grok 4.6 (high) | Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 60.5 | 60.5 | neck and neck |
Each publisher runs its own tasks, harnesses and effort settings, so their overall verdicts can differ; BenchLeader reconciles them on one scale. † measured at another effort setting of the same model (the publisher did not test the one compared here).
Price, speed and latency
List prices blended at three input tokens per output token. Per-task prices use the token counts on the methodology page. Cost, tokens and time per benchmark task are measured: Artificial Analysis’ averages over its whole Intelligence Index run.
| Measure | Grok 4.6 (high) | Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (max) |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $3.00 | – |
| Input / output per 1M | $2.00 / $6.00 | – / – |
| Cached input per 1M | $0.500 | – |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.0026 | – |
| Price per task: summarize a 30-page report | $0.028 | – |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.021 | – |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.144 | – |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.0052 | – |
| Agentic coding session, input mostly cached | $0.076 | – |
| Output speed | 72 tok/s | – |
| Time to first answer | 29.1 s | – |
| Time to a complete answer | 57.7 s | – |
Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Grok 4.6 (high) scores 60.5 and takes 29 s to its first answer token; Grok 4.6 (medium) scores 59.5 in 22 s, Grok 4.6 (xhigh) scores 57.6 in 29 s. Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (max) scores 60.5. Higher effort means more thinking before the answer: better scores, longer waits and more tokens billed. How reasoning effort changes scores and cost.
Every benchmark
117 benchmarks, grouped by category; each name links to the board and its leaders. † measured at another effort setting of the same model, shown for reference and not counted as a win.
| Metric | Publisher | Grok 4.6 (high) | Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (max) |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | BenchLeader | 60.5 | 60.5 |
| Agents & tools score | BenchLeader | 57.9 | – |
| Coding score | BenchLeader | 61.4 | – |
| Human preference score | BenchLeader | 64.2 | – |
| Knowledge score | BenchLeader | 59.8 | 67.6 |
| Long context score | BenchLeader | 64.9 | – |
| Maths score | BenchLeader | 63.4 | 65.8 |
| Multimodal score | BenchLeader | 60.0 | – |
| Reasoning score | BenchLeader | 63.6 | 67.1 |
| Blended price $/M | BenchLeader | $3.00 | – |
| Output speed | BenchLeader | 72 tok/s | – |
| Time to first answer | BenchLeader | 29.1 s | – |
| Context window | BenchLeader | 500,000 tokens | – |
| Reasoning | |||
| GPQA Diamond | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 94.0% | 94.2% |
| SimpleBench | SimpleBench | 75.9%† | – |
| Arena Hard Prompts | Arena (LMArena) | 1481 | – |
| LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 91.2%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 90.5%† | – |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 95.0% | – |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 42.9% | – |
| HLE-Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 21.5%† | – |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | Vals AI | 94.7% | – |
| ARC-AGI-1 | ARC Prize | 87.0% | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | ARC Prize | 65.1% | – |
| ARC-AGI-3 | ARC Prize | 2.1%† | – |
| CritPt | Artificial Analysis | 17.1% | – |
| CritPt v2 hard subset (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 40.0%† | – |
| MysteryMechanism | Vals AI | 30.6% | – |
| Chess Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 33.0% | 45.0% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 34.0%† | 42.0% |
| LMCA | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 48.5%† | – |
| DTBench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 97.3%† | – |
| ForecastBench | ForecastBench | 65.5%† | – |
| Coding | |||
| SciCode | SciCode | 56.5% | – |
| WeirdML | WeirdML | 67.3% | – |
| FrontierCode | Cognition | 48.0%† | – |
| Arena Coding | Arena (LMArena) | 1508 | – |
| Arena WebDev | Arena (LMArena) | 1618 | – |
Show all 117 benchmarks
| Metric | Publisher | Grok 4.6 (high) | Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (max) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | |||
| LiveBench 2.0 Coding | LiveBench | 76.7%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 Coding | LiveBench | 76.8%† | – |
| LiveCodeBench | Vals AI | 88.2% | – |
| IOI | Vals AI | 47.6% | – |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | Vals AI | 95.6% | – |
| Code Migration | Vals AI | 44.6% | – |
| ProgramBench | Vals AI | 1.0% | – |
| Vibe Code Bench 1-100 | Vals AI | 14.8% | – |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 76.2% | – |
| MirrorCode | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 41.1%† | – |
| DeepSWE v1.1 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 65.2% | – |
| CursorBench | Cursor | 40.4% | – |
| ALE-Bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 1508.1† | – |
| FrontierSWE | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 25.3%† | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 21.2% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 88.4% | – |
| Startrise Frontend | Startrise | 72.1%† | – |
| GameBench 2 Overall | DuelLab GameBench 2 | 59.0† | – |
| GameBench 2 by reasoning setting | DuelLab GameBench 2 | 68.6† | – |
| Design Arena Website | Design Arena | 1284† | – |
| FrontierCode 2.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 19.8%† | – |
| Agents & tools | |||
| Terminal-Bench | Terminal-Bench | 19.7% | – |
| APEX-Agents | Mercor | 65.3%† | – |
| Arena Agent | Arena (LMArena) | -0.2† | – |
| LiveBench Long Agentic | LiveBench | 18.7%† | – |
| LiveBench Browser | LiveBench | 49.4%† | – |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | LiveBench | 57.0%† | – |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | Vals AI | 78.3% | – |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 50.7% | – |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 41.3% | – |
| CyberBench | Vals AI | 67.7% | – |
| Finance Agent v2 | Vals AI | 53.7% | – |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1 | Vals AI | 15.8% | – |
| Legal Research Bench | Vals AI | 48.1% | – |
| SkillsBench | Vals AI | 55.8% | – |
| Tax Agent Bench | Vals AI | 33.7% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | 17.2% | – |
| Terminal-Bench Science | Vals AI | 11.4% | – |
| Time Horizon Index: KSP | Vals AI | 5.8% | – |
| Vending-Bench 2 | Andon Labs | 9047.0† | – |
| AutomationBench | Artificial Analysis | 66.7% | – |
| GDP.pdf (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 17.0% | – |
| EnterpriseOps-Gym | Artificial Analysis | 48.3% | – |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1528 | – |
| Design Arena Agentic | Design Arena | 1233† | – |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 6.2% | – |
| Maths | |||
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 66.0%† | 78.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 31.7%† | 65.8% |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 97.8% | 100.0% |
| ProofBench | Vals AI | 51.0%† | – |
| LiveBench Mathematics | LiveBench | 92.6%† | – |
| Arena Maths | Arena (LMArena) | 1444 | – |
| Knowledge | |||
| SimpleQA Verified | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 49.3% | 62.2% |
| LiveBench 2.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 75.3%† | – |
| LiveBench Research | LiveBench | 88.8%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 73.9%† | – |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 24.9† | – |
| MMLU-Pro | Vals AI | 89.4% | – |
| LegalBench | Vals AI | 86.3% | – |
| CorpFin | Vals AI | 66.2% | – |
| TaxEval | Vals AI | 71.1% | – |
| BioMysteryBench | Vals AI | 72.2% | – |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | Vals AI | 62.7% | – |
| MedCode | Vals AI | 44.7% | – |
| MedScribe | Vals AI | 86.5% | – |
| Public Benefits Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 66.8% | – |
| EBR-bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 30.5%† | – |
| GDP.pdf | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 16.0% | – |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1: accuracy | Artificial Analysis | 46.2%† | – |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucination | Artificial Analysis | 60.3%† | – |
| Instruction following | |||
| LiveBench Language | LiveBench | 83.7%† | – |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | LiveBench | 71.9%† | – |
| Arena Instruction Following | Arena (LMArena) | 1451 | – |
| Human preference | |||
| Arena Text | Arena (LMArena) | 1456 | – |
| Arena Creative Writing | Arena (LMArena) | 1443 | – |
| Arena Multi-turn | Arena (LMArena) | 1449 | – |
| Arena Longer Queries | Arena (LMArena) | 1476 | – |
| Multimodal | |||
| Arena Vision | Arena (LMArena) | 1264 | – |
| LiveBench Design | LiveBench | 76.3%† | – |
| MortgageTax | Vals AI | 64.2% | – |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 33.2%† | – |
| Long context | |||
| AA-LCR v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 80.3% | – |
| Arena Document | Arena (LMArena) | 1451 | – |
| MLCR | Artificial Analysis | 15.6% | – |
| Composite | |||
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 157.9† | – |
| LiveBench 2.0 | LiveBench | 63.5%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 | LiveBench | 78.0%† | – |
| AA Intelligence Index v5.0 | Artificial Analysis | 31.0† | – |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | Artificial Analysis | 44.3 | – |
| AA Progress Index v1 | Artificial Analysis | 321.5 | – |
| Vals RSI Index | Vals AI | 25.5%† | – |
| Vals Science Index | Vals AI | 38.1% | – |
Data as of 2026-11-09. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
DuelLab GameBench 2, release gb2-20261103-eaea31df94e6 (https://benchmarks.duellab.org/releases/gb2-20261103-eaea31df94e6/), CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Scores mapped to BenchLeader model names; not endorsed by DuelLab.
What changed
- Grok 4.6 (high): 2 score revisions.
- Grok 4.6 (high): 1 score revision.
- Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (max): first results.
- Grok 4.6 (high): 1 new result (AA Progress Index v1).
- Grok 4.6 (high): BenchLeader Index 61.4 → 60.9.
- Grok 4.6 (high): 2 new results (Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1, Vals Science Index).
- Grok 4.6 (high): 1 score revision.
- Grok 4.6 (high): 3 new results (GDPval-AA v2.1, normalised score, AA-Omniscience v1.1: accuracy, AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucination).
- Grok 4.6 (high): 1 new result (ProgramBench); 1 score revision.
- Grok 4.6 (high): 1 score revision.
Related comparisons
- Grok 4.6 vs Claude Fable 5.2
- Grok 4.6 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Grok 4.6 vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Kimi K3.1 Pro Together vs Claude Fable 5.2
- Kimi K3.1 Pro Together vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Kimi K3.1 Pro Together vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Kimi K3.1 Pro Together vs GPT-6 Astra
- Grok 4.6 vs GPT-6.1 Sol
Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs
Grok 4.6 vs Kimi K3.1 Pro Together: questions
- Is Grok 4.6 better than Kimi K3.1 Pro Together?
- Grok 4.6 (high) and Kimi K3.1 Pro Together (max) are neck and neck on quality (60.5 vs 60.5, within the ±4.1 margin). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; the two are within the margin of error as of 9 Nov 2026, so check the category scores for your use.
- Do independent benchmarks agree on Grok 4.6 vs Kimi K3.1 Pro Together?
- Across the 4 benchmarks both have, Grok 4.6 leads 0, Kimi K3.1 Pro Together leads 4.
- When was Kimi K3.1 Pro Together released?
- Kimi K3.1 Pro Together was released on 23 Oct 2026.