Grok 4.6 vs Kimi K3
Compare Grok 4.6 and Kimi K3 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, and OCR.
Compare Grok 4.6 vs Kimi K3 live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Compare image classification labels and confidence scores side-by-side.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Grok 4.6 vs Kimi K3 on Vision Evals
Kimi K3 scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Kimi K3 leads 51.9% to 20.2%.
Overall, Grok 4.6 averages 67.8% (#16 of 28) against 66.5% (#19 of 28) for Kimi K3.
Grok 4.6 is both cheaper ($0.0069 vs $0.011 per sample) and faster (7.4s vs 12.7s per sample).
Grok 4.6 vs Kimi K3 Comparison Table
Evals updated August 12, 2026Pricing updated August 13, 2026
| Property | Grok 4.6 | Kimi K3 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | SpaceXAI | Moonshot AI |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2026 | Jul 2026 |
| Context Window | 500K | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 2.8T | |
| License | Proprietary | Modified MIT |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $3.00 |
| Output $/1M | $6.00 | $15.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 67.8% | 66.5% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0069 | $0.011 |
| Avg speed / sample | 7.39s | 12.71s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 20.2% $0.0068 | 51.9% $0.020 |
| Counting | 70.3% $0.0074 | 46.0% $0.0046 |
| Identification | 78.1% $0.0048 | 81.3% $0.0041 |
| OCR | 92.0% $0.0086 | 93.0% $0.0094 |
| Data Extraction | 84.5% $0.0042 | 84.5% $0.0046 |
| Reasoning (low) | 61.6% $0.0087 | 42.4% $0.0044 |
| Reasoning (high) | 61.6% $0.027 | 74.2% $0.037 |
Grok 4.6 vs Kimi K3: Overview
Grok 4.6 is a proprietary reasoning model from xAI aimed at long-running agentic workflows, coding, and knowledge work. It accepts text and image input and returns text, with a 500,000 token context window and a knowledge cutoff of February 1, 2026. The model exposes an adjustable reasoning budget with low, medium, high, and xhigh settings, where high is the default, and it supports function calling, structured outputs, web and X search, and code execution as documented tool behaviors. Its visual capability covers interpreting images supplied alongside text prompts, which places it in the visual question answering and document understanding family rather than producing pixel level outputs such as boxes or masks.
xAI characterizes Grok 4.6 as the result of an extended post-training run over the Grok 4.5 lineage rather than a new pretrained base. The described recipe combines curated model-generated reasoning and technical data, engineering data, a revised optimizer, regenerated supervised fine-tuning trajectories, and reinforcement learning across agent environments spanning knowledge work, coding, kernel optimization, web development, and computer-aided design. Parameter count and architecture specifics are not disclosed. Independent measurement from Artificial Analysis places the model at 61 on its Intelligence Index, five points above Grok 4.5.
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 3 of the six vision tasks and averages 66.5% (#19 of 28) against 67.8% (#16 of 28) for Grok 4.6. 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 20.2%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Grok 4.6 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0069 per sample against $0.011. Grok 4.6 is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 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.
Grok 4.6 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.4s 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 image captioning and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.