Kimi K3.1 Pro Open vs SAFugu Ultra Paid
Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Fugu Ultra compared — price per token, context window, multimodality, openness and which to choose. Can the open-source model replace the paid one? Full 2026 breakdown.
Prices & specs refreshed from live data · olud.ai
Open-model prices = cheapest provider via OpenRouter; official maker rates may be higher.
$10 /M outputNo per-token fees if you self-host
$30 /M outputManaged API (no infra to run)
Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Fugu Ultra specs
| Spec | Kimi K3.1 Pro | Fugu Ultra | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maker | Moonshot AI | Sakana AI | – |
| Type | Open-weight | Proprietary | |
| Context window | 1M tokens | 1M tokens | |
| Input price | $2/M · free self-host | $5/M | |
| Output price | $10/M · free self-host | $30/M | |
| Vision / multimodal | Yes | Yes | = Tie |
| Tool / function calling | Yes | Yes | = Tie |
| Self-hostable | Yes | No (API only) | |
| License | Modified MIT | Proprietary |
Price gap & when to choose each
Kimi K3.1 Pro is ~3.0× cheaper than Fugu Ultra on output tokens ($10 vs $30 per M tokens).
- You want to self-host or run on your cloud
- You need the longer 1M context window
- You prioritize data privacy & control
- You want the lowest operating costs
- You are building open or reproducible AI
- You want frontier performance through a managed API
- You value reliability & ecosystem
- You don't want to manage infrastructure
Feature comparison
| Capability | Kimi K3.1 Pro | Fugu Ultra |
|---|---|---|
| Open weights (downloadable) | ✓ | ✗ |
| Self-hostable | ✓ | ✗ |
| Runs fully offline | ✓ | ✗ |
| Vision / multimodal | ✓ | ✓ |
| Tool / function calling | ✓ | ✓ |
| 1M+ context window | ✓ | ✓ |
Benchmarks: Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Fugu Ultra
Independent benchmark scores measured by Artificial Analysis. Higher is better (except latency).
Benchmark data by Artificial Analysis.
How Kimi K3.1 Pro and Fugu Ultra score
| Criterion | Kimi K3.1 Pro | Fugu Ultra |
|---|---|---|
| Cost-efficiency | 3.5 | 3.0 |
| Context window | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| Openness | 5.0 | 1.5 |
| Self-hosting | 5.0 | 1.0 |
| Multimodality | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Scores come from live data — output price (cost), context length, open vs closed weights (openness & self-hosting) and vision/tool support (multimodality). Raw task quality isn't scored here; it depends on your benchmark — see the verdict.
What each model is
Kimi K3.1 Pro Open
Kimi K3.1 Pro is Moonshot AI's flagship open-weight multimodal reasoning model and a post-trained successor to Kimi K3, with a 1M-token context window. It is built for long-horizon coding, 3D...
Fugu Ultra Paid
Fugu Ultra is the higher-performance model in Sakana AI's Fugu family. Rather than a single monolithic model, Fugu is a learned multi-agent orchestration system: a language model trained to route...
Other models in these families
These variants are tracked but not compared here — one page per family keeps the comparison readable.
Frequently asked questions
Is Kimi K3.1 Pro as good as Fugu Ultra?
Kimi K3.1 Pro is open-weight and competitive on many tasks, but Fugu Ultra may still lead on the hardest reasoning and agentic work. The gap keeps narrowing — benchmark both on your actual use case before deciding.
Can I run Kimi K3.1 Pro locally?
Yes. Kimi K3.1 Pro has open weights, so you can self-host it on your own GPUs or run it via a low-cost API. Fugu Ultra is API-only and cannot be self-hosted.
How much cheaper is Kimi K3.1 Pro?
Kimi K3.1 Pro costs $10/M output vs $30/M for Fugu Ultra — roughly 3x cheaper via API, and free if you self-host.
Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Fugu Ultra — which should I pick in 2026?
Choose Kimi K3.1 Pro if you want to self-host, keep your data private and skip per-token fees — it's open-weight and runs on your own hardware. Choose Fugu Ultra if you want frontier capability through a managed API with zero infrastructure to run.
People also compare
Explore more open-source AI
Browse the full open-source model leaderboard, thousands of tools and live benchmarks — all in one place.
Open the leaderboard →