Model comparison
Interfaze Beta vs Kimi K3
Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Interfaze Beta unranked (Not scored); Kimi K3 #4 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Interfaze Beta and Kimi K3 share 3 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 7 results are unique to Interfaze Beta; 54 to Kimi K3.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 3
- Interfaze Beta only
- 7
- Kimi K3 only
- 54
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Interfaze Beta makes more sense if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill; Kimi K3 is the better fit if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you need the larger 1.05M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Interfaze Beta and Kimi K3 finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Kimi K3 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.50 input / $3.50 output per 1M tokens for Interfaze Beta. That is roughly 4.3x on output cost alone. Kimi K3 gives you the larger context window at 1.05M, compared with 1M for Interfaze Beta.
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 | Interfaze Beta | Δ | Kimi K3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Interfaze Beta89.9 | Margin← 28.9 | Kimi K361.0 |
| Multimodal | Interfaze Beta71.1 | Margin→ 7.4 | Kimi K378.5 |
| Agentic | Interfaze BetaNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K389.5 |
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 | Interfaze Beta | Kimi K3 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Interfaze Beta$1.5 input / $3.5 output | Kimi K3$3 input / $15 output | Interfaze Beta has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Interfaze BetaNot available | Kimi K3Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Interfaze BetaNot available | Kimi K3Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Interfaze Beta1M | Kimi K31.05M | Kimi K3 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic21 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Interfaze Beta | Kimi K3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 Agentic IndexSource | — | 50.1% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 59.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1679 | 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 |
Coding10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Interfaze Beta | Kimi K3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spider 2.0-LiteSource | 52.9% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 76.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 58.7% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeInterfaze Beta wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Interfaze Beta | Kimi K3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 89.9% | 93.5% | Kimi K3 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 89.9% | 93.5% | Kimi K3 leads |
| MMMLUSource | 90.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 56% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 43.5% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 57.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 93.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 44.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 18.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 46.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 50.9% | Not comparable |
MultimodalKimi K3 wins19 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Interfaze Beta | Kimi K3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| OCRBench V2Source | 70.7% | — | Not comparable |
| olmOCRSource | 85.7% | — | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | 82.1% | — | Not comparable |
| VoxPopuli WERSource | 2.4% | — | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | 71.1% | 81.6% | 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 |
| CharXivSource | — | 91.3% | 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 |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 80.5% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1386 | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Interfaze Beta | Kimi K3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SOB Value AccSource | 79.5% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Interfaze Beta or Kimi K3?
Interfaze Beta and Kimi K3 are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Interfaze Beta or Kimi K3?
Interfaze Beta has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 89.9 versus 61. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Interfaze Beta or Kimi K3?
Kimi K3 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.5 versus 71.1. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
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.