Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Pareto
Kimi K3.1 Pro comes out ahead, 46 to 33 and 31 on our weighted score, though Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 25% cheaper per token.
- Our pick
Moonshot AIKimi K3.1 Pro
46/100- ECI—
- Price$2.00 / $10.00
- Context1.05M
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
31/100- ECI—
- Price$2.00 / $6.00
- Context262K
Unbiased
Pareto
33/100- ECI—
- Price$2.57 / $7.72
- Context262K
Kimi K3.1 Pro is our pick
Kimi K3.1 Pro is the better all-round choice, scoring 46/100 against Pareto (33) and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B (31). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B wins on price. 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 priceQwen3.8 2.4T A95BQwen3.8 2.4T A95B $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 · Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 262,144 · Pareto 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsKimi K3.1 ProKimi K3.1 Pro: Text, Images, Video · Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: Text · Pareto: Text, Images
- Self-hostingQwen3.8 2.4T A95BPublishes downloadable weights (qwen3.8-max)
| Measure | Weight | Kimi K3.1 Pro | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Pareto |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 20 | 26 | 21 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 80 | 35 | 50 |
| Context window | 20% | 61 | 37 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 46/100 | 31/100 | 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 | Kimi K3.1 ProMoonshot AI | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BAlibaba (Qwen) | ParetoUnbiased |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $2.00 (best) | $2.00 (best) | $2.57 |
| Output | $10.00 | $6.00 (best) | $7.72 |
| Cached input | $0.20 | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $4.00 | $3.00 (best) | $3.86 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Moonshot AI API | Median of 23 providers | Median of 2 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens | 131,072 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | Yes | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · high · max | Yes | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Openqwen3.8-max | Proprietary |
| API model ID | kimi-k3.1-pro | — | — |
| API providers | 17 | 23 (best) | 2 |
| Released | Oct 23, 2026 | Aug 12, 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.
- Kimi K3.1 Pro$40.00
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B$32.00
- Pareto$41.16
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Kimi K3.1 Pro, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B or Pareto?
Kimi K3.1 Pro is the better all-round choice, scoring 46/100 against Pareto (33) and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B (31). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B wins on price. 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, Kimi K3.1 Pro, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B or Pareto?
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is cheaper at $2.00 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (median across 23 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 Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 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. Kimi K3.1 Pro has not been scored yet, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 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 Kimi K3.1 Pro, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 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 262,144 for Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B and 262,144 for Pareto. Maximum output per response: Kimi K3.1 Pro up to 131,072, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B up to 131,072, Pareto up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Kimi K3.1 Pro accepts text, images and video; Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B accepts text; Pareto accepts text and images. Kimi K3.1 Pro handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B publishes its weights (qwen3.8-max) and can be self-hosted; Kimi K3.1 Pro and Pareto is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Kimi K3.1 Pro is the newest, released Oct 23, 2026. Pareto came out Sep 17, 2026; Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B came out Aug 12, 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.
