Roboflow

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.

Open Classification in the full playground
GrokGrok 4.6
Run to compare this model.
MoonshotAIKimi K3
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

MoonshotAI

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 4.6Kimi K3

Grok 4.6 vs Kimi K3 Comparison Table

Evals updated August 12, 2026Pricing updated August 13, 2026

PropertyGrok 4.6Kimi K3
OrganizationSpaceXAIMoonshot AI
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Jul 2026
Context Window500K1.0M
Parameters2.8T
LicenseProprietaryModified MIT
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00$3.00
Output $/1M$6.00$15.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Object DetectionDemo
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 / sample7.39s12.71s
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

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

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.