Fugu Max vs Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Pareto
Too close to call on our weighted score (Kimi K3.1 Pro 46, Fugu Max 46, Pareto 33). The right pick depends on what you value most.
Sakana AIFugu Max
46/100- ECI—
- Price$2.00 / $6.00
- Context1M
Moonshot AIKimi K3.1 Pro
46/100- ECI—
- Price$2.00 / $10.00
- Context1.05M
Unbiased
Pareto
33/100- ECI—
- Price$2.57 / $7.72
- Context262K
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Kimi K3.1 Pro 46/100, Fugu Max 46/100, Pareto 33/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Fugu Max on price and Kimi K3.1 Pro for long inputs. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceFugu MaxFugu Max $3.00 · Pareto $3.86 · Kimi K3.1 Pro $4.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextKimi K3.1 ProKimi K3.1 Pro 1,048,576 · Fugu Max 1,000,000 · Pareto 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsFugu Max and Kimi K3.1 ProFugu Max: Text, Images, PDFs · Kimi K3.1 Pro: Text, Images, Video · Pareto: Text, Images
- Self-hostingNo open weightsAll three are available only through APIs
| Measure | Weight | Fugu Max | Kimi K3.1 Pro | Pareto |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 26 | 20 | 21 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 70 | 80 | 50 |
| Context window | 20% | 60 | 61 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 46/100 | 46/100 | 33/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Fugu MaxSakana AI | Kimi K3.1 ProMoonshot AI | ParetoUnbiased |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $2.00 (best) | $2.00 (best) | $2.57 |
| Output | $6.00 (best) | $10.00 | $7.72 |
| Cached input | — | $0.20 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $3.00 (best) | $4.00 | $3.86 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 9 providers | Official Moonshot AI API | Median of 2 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 128,000 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | Yes | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yeslow · high · max | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | kimi-k3.1-pro | — |
| API providers | 9 | 17 (best) | 2 |
| Released | Sep 11, 2026 | Oct 23, 2026 | Sep 17, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Fugu Max$32.00
- Kimi K3.1 Pro$40.00
- Pareto$41.16
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Fugu Max, Kimi K3.1 Pro or Pareto?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Kimi K3.1 Pro 46/100, Fugu Max 46/100, Pareto 33/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Fugu Max on price and Kimi K3.1 Pro for long inputs. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Fugu Max, Kimi K3.1 Pro or Pareto?
Fugu Max is cheaper at $2.00 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (median across 9 API providers). Pareto costs $2.57 input / $7.72 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers); Kimi K3.1 Pro costs $2.00 input / $10.00 output per million tokens (official Moonshot AI API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $3.00 per million tokens for Fugu Max versus $3.86 for Pareto (1.3× as much) and $4.00 for Kimi K3.1 Pro (1.3× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Fugu Max has not been scored yet, Kimi K3.1 Pro has not been scored yet and Pareto has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Fugu Max, Kimi K3.1 Pro and Pareto yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Kimi K3.1 Pro has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Fugu Max and 262,144 for Pareto. Maximum output per response: Fugu Max up to 128,000, Kimi K3.1 Pro up to 131,072, Pareto up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Fugu Max accepts text, images and PDFs; Kimi K3.1 Pro accepts text, images and video; Pareto accepts text and images. Fugu Max handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
No. Fugu Max, Kimi K3.1 Pro and Pareto are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.
Which is newer?
Kimi K3.1 Pro is the newest, released Oct 23, 2026. Pareto came out Sep 17, 2026; Fugu Max came out Sep 11, 2026.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.
