logoalt Hacker News

Tiberiumtoday at 3:04 PM14 repliesview on HN

More details:

- https://platform.kimi.ai/docs/guide/kimi-k3-quickstart

- https://platform.kimi.ai/docs/pricing/chat-k3

1M context, pricing is $3/$15 for 1M tokens (cache $0.3), which is extremely high for a Chinese open-weight model, but if it's truly competitive with most of the current frontier and is only behind Fable/Sol, the pricing is justified.

This is 1:1 pricing of Anthropic's Sonnet series (except Sonnet 5 which is currently on discount), and very close to 5.6 Terra pricing (Terra's input is $2.5).

One thing to consider, though: reasoning efficiency matters directly for how expensive a model actually is in real use. GPT's models are extremely reasoning efficient, and some Claude models like Fable at lower effort are as well. So if Sol spends 10K reasoning tokens to do something (at $30/1M) vs Kimi K3 that spends 50K reasoning tokens, Sol would win on cost effectiveness.


Replies

dghlsakjgtoday at 3:16 PM

Tokenizers also matter. Anthropics tokenizers will encode the same piece of text at a way higher token count than OpenAi, for example.

That said, Kimi is competing against GLM in my mind, and GLM 5.2 is less than 1/3 the price.

show 1 reply
Deukhoofdtoday at 3:12 PM

I feel like the quickstart is missing something. It's referring to its tech blog for actual benchmarks, but K3 isn't mentioned on there, the last thing on that blog was K2.6, 2 releases ago.

nullbiotoday at 4:11 PM

This is too expensive to be a viable model. If it were $5/1m output, it might be another story. At these prices, there's no reason to use this over GPT 5.6.

show 2 replies
schmorptrontoday at 3:40 PM

Are thinking models only the reasonable tradeoff vs using much larger non thinking ones because the cost of output tokens is below that of input tokens?

h14htoday at 4:06 PM

> reasoning efficiency matters directly for how expensive a model actually is in real use

I have high hopes on this topic, given token efficiency seemed to be the primary (only?) goal of the K2.7 Code release.

Excited to see the signals that come out of the big eval/benchmark sites.

mmaundertoday at 3:35 PM

Agreed re reasoning. I’ve seen this play out with 5x reasoning negating cost savings.

martinaldtoday at 3:22 PM

Will be interesting to see how it stacks up pricing wise on the various inference providers.

sroericktoday at 4:11 PM

How do Kimi's subscriptions work? I find their price structure pretty confusing

0xbadcafebeetoday at 3:56 PM

The big danger here is the gradual increase in open-weight subscription costs. I use open weight subscriptions, with lower-cost models for 80% of my tasks and GLM-5.2, Qwen 3.7-Max, Kimi-K2.6/2.7-Code for the 20% that need the most intelligence. That lets me maximize the rate-limit the subscription gives (rate limits per model are literally a price-limit-per-token/model). When new/more expensive open weights come in, providers phase out older/cheaper models. Over time we will either have to pay more, or use our subscriptions less.

It goes without saying, but if the open weights become as expensive as SOTA models, there's no point in using open weights. If nobody pays for open weights' development, the development dies out, and we're stuck with a US-controlled duopoly again. Which may be the biggest threat the world has seen from the US since nukes.

show 1 reply
csomartoday at 3:41 PM

It seems the subsidized era is nearing its end and we'll see a convergence on API pricing before a pulling of subscriptions pricing.

show 2 replies
cyanydeeztoday at 3:24 PM

I eat 1M context in a local model in about 3-4 hours.

It'd need to be exceptionally smart and error free to ever make sense.

actionfromafartoday at 3:19 PM

Yeah... it's as if vendors hawked cars and announced expected range on a tank of gas.

But some cars have a 15 gallon tank and others a 50 gallon tank.

grueztoday at 3:15 PM

[dead]

sixtyjtoday at 3:22 PM

[flagged]

show 8 replies