Model comparison
Command A+ vs Kimi K3
Head-to-head evidence from 16 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Command A+ #135 (Estimated); Kimi K3 #4 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Command A+ and Kimi K3 share 16 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 5 results are unique to Command A+; 41 to Kimi K3.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 16
- Command A+ only
- 5
- Kimi K3 only
- 41
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Kimi K3 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Command A+ only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 16 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Kimi K3 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 80.96 to 47.51. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Kimi K3's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 78.5 against 59.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 52.7% to 91.3%.
Kimi K3 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.50 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens for Command A+. Kimi K3 gives you the larger context window at 1.05M, compared with 128K for Command A+.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Command A+ | Δ | Kimi K3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Command A+59.3 | Margin→ 19.2 | Kimi K378.5 |
| Agentic | Command A+Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K389.5 |
| Knowledge | Command A+Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K361.0 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Command A+ | Kimi K3 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Command A+$2.5 input / $10 output | Kimi K3$3 input / $15 output | Command A+ has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Command A+272 tok/s | Kimi K3Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Command A+0.25 s | Kimi K3Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Command A+128K | Kimi K31.05M | Kimi K3 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic23 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Command A+ | Kimi K3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 80.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 9.2% | 50.1% | Kimi K3 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 10.7% | 59.0% | Kimi K3 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 714 | 1679 | Kimi K3 leads |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 25% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 88.3% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 91.2% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 95.0% | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon-VerifiedSource | — | 73.2% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 84.2% | Not comparable |
| AutomationBenchSource | — | 30.8% | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | — | 52.9% | Not comparable |
| APEX-AgentsSource | — | 37.6% | Not comparable |
| SpreadsheetBench 2Source | — | 34.8% | Not comparable |
| DECK-BenchSource | — | 73.5% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 1543 | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | — | 52.7% | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 45.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 94.6% | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 33.4% | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | — | 85% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 41.3% | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 47.7% | Not comparable |
Coding9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Command A+ | Kimi K3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding IndexSource | 27.9% | 76.2% | Kimi K3 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 37.8% | 58.7% | Kimi K3 leads |
| deepSweSource | — | 67.5% | Not comparable |
| FrontierSWESource | — | 81.2% | Not comparable |
| ProgramBenchSource | — | 77.8% | Not comparable |
| Kimi Code Bench v2Source | — | 72.9% | Not comparable |
| sweMarathonSource | — | 42% | Not comparable |
| PostTrain BenchSource | — | 36.6% | Not comparable |
| MLS-Bench LiteSource | — | 48.3% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Command A+ | Kimi K3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 22.5% | 57.1% | Kimi K3 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 76.1% | 93.5% | Kimi K3 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 11.4% | 44.3% | Kimi K3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -4.0% | 18.4% | Kimi K3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 8.9% | 46.0% | Kimi K3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 14.1% | 50.9% | Command A+ leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 38.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 93.5% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 93.5% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 56% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 43.5% | Not comparable |
MultimodalKimi K3 wins16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Command A+ | Kimi K3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMUSource | 75.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | 63% | 81.6% | Kimi K3 leads |
| CharXivSource | 52.7% | 91.3% | Kimi K3 leads |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 63.2% | 80.5% | Kimi K3 leads |
| OfficeQA ProSource | — | 63.3% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource | — | 83.4% | Not comparable |
| CharXiv w/o toolsSource | — | 84.8% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 94.3% | Not comparable |
| MathVision w/ PythonSource | — | 97.8% | Not comparable |
| BabyVision w/ PythonSource | — | 85.7% | Not comparable |
| ZeroBenchSource | — | 23.0% | Not comparable |
| ZeroBench w/ PythonSource | — | 41.0% | Not comparable |
| WorldVQA ForceAnswerSource | — | 51.0% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBenchSource | — | 91.1% | Not comparable |
| PerceptionBenchSource | — | 58.5% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1386 | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Command A+ | Kimi K3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 73.9% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Command A+ or Kimi K3?
Kimi K3 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 80.96 to 47.51. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 52.7% and 91.3%.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Command A+ or Kimi K3?
Kimi K3 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.5 versus 59.3. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.