vakati-tech.ai

// head_to_head

Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Crouton Alpha

Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.

OpenRouter + LiveBenchAll comparisonsFull leaderboard

Crouton Alpha is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here.

Crouton Alpha does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.

moonshotai

Kimi K3.1 Pro

Blended / 1M
$4.00
Context
1.0M
Released
Oct 23, 2026
Overall score
71.3
reasoningtool callingimage inputvideo inputprompt caching

stealth

Crouton Alpha

Blended / 1M
Free
Context
1.0M
Released
Nov 3, 2026
Overall score
Not evaluated
reasoningtool callingimage inputvideo inputfile inputaudio input

Specs and pricing

MetricKimi K3.1 ProCrouton Alpha
LiveBench overall

Weighted mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better.

71.3—
Cost per point

Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability.

$0.0104—
Blended price / 1M

3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic.

$4.00Freewin
Input price / 1M$2.00Freewin
Output price / 1M$10.00Freewin
Cached input / 1M

Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one.

$0.200—
Context window1.0M1.0M
Max output tokens944K944K

Benchmarks by category

An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — Kimi K3.1 Pro on top, Crouton Alpha below, both out of 100.

Long-horizon agentic
39.1
—
Coding
81.8
—
Reasoning
91.1
—
Browser
75.9
—
Data analysis
79.1
—
Research
77.9
—
Documents & design
77.8
—

What each one costs to run

Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.

WorkloadKimi K3.1 ProCrouton Alpha
Support chatbot

1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests

$1,150/mo$0/mo
RAG assistant

8K in / 600 out × 100K requests

$1,480/mo$0/mo
Coding agent

40K in / 4K out × 20K requests

$1,392/mo$0/mo
Document extraction

20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests

$2,660/mo$0/mo
Bulk classification

500 in / 20 out × 5M requests

$5,100/mo$0/mo
Run these two through the cost calculator

Which should you pick?

You are cost-constrained

Crouton Alpha

Cheaper on blended list price at Free per million tokens.

Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Crouton Alpha FAQ

Which is better, Kimi K3.1 Pro or Crouton Alpha?

Crouton Alpha is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here. Crouton Alpha does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.

Is Kimi K3.1 Pro cheaper than Crouton Alpha?

Crouton Alpha is cheaper. On a 3:1 input:output blend, Kimi K3.1 Pro lists at $4.00 per million tokens and Crouton Alpha at Free. Input and output are priced separately — Kimi K3.1 Pro charges $2.00 in and $10.00 out, Crouton Alpha charges Free and Free — so the model that looks cheaper flips depending on how output-heavy your workload is.

Does Kimi K3.1 Pro or Crouton Alpha have a bigger context window?

They are effectively the same — 1.0M for Kimi K3.1 Pro and 1.0M for Crouton Alpha.

Do Kimi K3.1 Pro and Crouton Alpha support prompt caching?

Kimi K3.1 Pro publishes a cached-input rate of $0.200 per million tokens against a full input rate of $2.00. The catalogue lists no separate cached rate for Crouton Alpha, which means the provider does not price it separately here — not that caching is unavailable.

Related comparisons

How these numbers are produced

  • Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
  • Scores — LiveBench release 2026-10-25, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
  • Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
  • “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.

Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.