GPT-5.4 Mini vs Kimi K3
Compare GPT-5.4 Mini and Kimi K3 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, Object Detection, Classification, Image Captioning, and OCR.
Compare GPT-5.4 Mini vs Kimi K3 live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
GPT-5.4 Mini vs Kimi K3 on Vision Evals
Kimi K3 scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Kimi K3 leads 51.9% to 16.1%.
Overall, GPT-5.4 Mini averages 63.5% (#23 of 25) against 66.5% (#17 of 25) for Kimi K3.
GPT-5.4 Mini is both cheaper ($0.0030 vs $0.011 per sample) and faster (5.3s vs 12.7s per sample).
GPT-5.4 Mini vs Kimi K3 Comparison Table
Evals updated August 6, 2026Pricing updated August 11, 2026
| Property | GPT-5.4 Mini | Kimi K3 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | Moonshot AI |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Mar 2026 | Jul 2026 |
| Context Window | 400K | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 2.8T | |
| License | Proprietary | Modified MIT |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.750 | $3.00 |
| Output $/1M | $4.50 | $15.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 63.5% | 66.5% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0030 | $0.011 |
| Avg speed / sample | 5.35s | 12.71s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 16.1% $0.0044 | 51.9% $0.020 |
| Counting | 60.8% $0.0019 | 46.0% $0.0046 |
| Identification | 78.1% $0.0013 | 81.3% $0.0041 |
| OCR | 88.1% $0.0042 | 93.0% $0.0094 |
| Data Extraction | 82.5% $0.0014 | 84.5% $0.0046 |
| Reasoning (low) | 55.6% $0.0023 | 42.4% $0.0044 |
| Reasoning (high) | 62.9% $0.0081 | 74.2% $0.037 |
GPT-5.4 Mini vs Kimi K3: Overview
GPT-5.4 mini is a fast, cost-efficient model developed by OpenAI and released on March 17, 2026, optimized for high-throughput workloads and subagent orchestration. It supports text and image inputs within a 400,000-token context window, making it ideal for processing extensive visual datasets and large codebases in a single request. Designed for low-latency production environments, the model integrates with key API features including function calling, web search, and tool-based computer use, allowing it to assist in automated workflows that require navigating digital interfaces.
Compared to the previous GPT-5 mini, this version runs more than twice as fast while approaching the performance levels of the flagship GPT-5.4 on reasoning and coding benchmarks. While the larger GPT-5.4 introduces native, state-of-the-art computer-use capabilities, GPT-5.4 mini provides a scalable alternative for interpreting screenshots and reasoning over dense UI layouts. For vision tasks on Playground, it excels at extracting structured information from visual documents and assisting in agentic tasks that involve real-time interpretation of software interfaces alongside text.
Kimi K3 is a sparse Mixture-of-Experts large language model developed by Moonshot AI, with 2.8 trillion total parameters and a 1-million-token context window. The model activates 16 out of 896 experts per token using the Stable LatentMoE framework, and is built on two architectural innovations: Kimi Delta Attention (KDA), a hybrid linear attention mechanism that enables up to 6.3x faster decoding in long-context settings, and Attention Residuals (AttnRes), which selectively retrieves representations across model depth and delivers roughly 25% higher training efficiency. Together with refined training and data recipes, these structural advances yield approximately 2.5x better overall scaling efficiency compared to its predecessor Kimi K2. The model applies quantization-aware training from the supervised fine-tuning stage onward, using MXFP4 weights with MXFP8 activations for hardware compatibility. Thinking mode is always enabled at launch, with reasoning effort configurable via the reasoning_effort field.
Kimi K3 supports native visual understanding alongside text, accepting image inputs for tasks that combine software engineering and visual reasoning. It targets long-horizon coding, knowledge work, and agentic workflows, and ships in two variants: K3 Max for general chat and agent tasks, and K3 Swarm Max for large-scale parallel processing across many coordinated sub-agents. The model is compatible with the OpenAI SDK via an OpenAI-compatible API. Full model weights are scheduled for release by July 27, 2026 under a Modified MIT license, following the open-weight pattern established by the Kimi K2 model family. A technical report with full architecture, training, and evaluation details is expected to accompany the weights release.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Kimi K3 performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 66.5% (#17 of 25) against 63.5% (#23 of 25) for GPT-5.4 Mini. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark, Kimi K3 leads with 51.9% against 16.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
GPT-5.4 Mini is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0030 per sample against $0.011. GPT-5.4 Mini is priced at $0.75 per 1M input tokens and $4.50 per 1M output; Kimi K3 is priced at $3.00 per 1M input tokens and $15.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
GPT-5.4 Mini is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 5.3s per inference against 12.7s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.
Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for open prompts and object detection in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.