Towards AITowards AIToneBench

K Kimi K3

Moonshot (Kimi) · open weights · writing benchmark

#8 of 130 Elo 2438 Overall 89.4 Open weights
Rank
#8 of 130
Writing Elo
2438 ±56
Overall
89.4 / 100
Cost / task
$0.263 per script
Family
Moonshot (Kimi) 1st of 6
Type
Open 1st of 47
Consistency
± 1.6 steadier than most
Avg tokens
26.2k in+out
Latency
367s per call
Head-to-head:vs Claude Opus 5 (max) · vs GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) · vs Grok 4.5 · vs DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 · vs Qwen3.8 Max · vs MiniMax M3 · vs GLM-5

The short version

Kimi K3 sits at #8 of 130 on ToneBench, in the upper tier, with a writing Elo of 2438 and an overall score of 89.4 out of 100. We measured it by having it write all 9 of our real YouTube scripts, five times each, then scoring every draft blind against our own finished versions. Here is how it shook out.

Inside Moonshot (Kimi), this is the strongest writer we tested. It edges out the other 5 Moonshot (Kimi) configs on the board, so if you're staying in this family for voice work, this is the one to reach for.

Among open-weights models, it comes in 1st of 47. That is a genuinely strong showing for an open-weights model on a voice-and-tone task, which is usually where the closed frontier still pulls ahead.

One thing that stands out: it is unusually consistent. Across its 45 drafts the overall score only moves ± 1.6 points run to run, versus a board median of ± 3.8. What you get on the first try is close to what you get every try.

What it does best is YouTube Structure: it ranks 5th on that dimension at 88.4, well above the board average. Its softer spot is Anti-Slop (92.0, 28th), which is the thing to watch if that metric matters most for your use.

It held steady across all 9 scripts, with its best run on the career guide / hiring analysis (90.4). Consistency like that is underrated, honestly, since it means fewer surprises when you actually put it to work.

On cost, it runs about $0.263/task. Claude Opus 5 (high) scores higher for less money, at $0.117/task, so on pure value this config is not the frontier.

Skill profile

The shape is the story: the further a corner reaches, the stronger that dimension. Biggest edge over the board: Length Discipline (+23.3); smallest edge: Anti-Slop (+9.2).

50Tone?Craft?Substance?Flow?YouTube?Hook?Length?Anti-Slop?Cues?
Kimi K3Board averageBoard best per metricMax possible (100)

Per-metric scores

Nine writing dimensions, each scored 0–100 and blended by the editorial weight shown. Rank is against all 130 current-ranked models. The thick bar is this model; the thin lines above and below are the current field's best model (darker) and average (lighter) on the same scale. The small ± number is its run-to-run variation.

Tone & Voice ?19% weight · +11.3 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 91.289.6± 1.5 · 7thboard avg · 78.3
Writing Craft ?13% weight · +10.4 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 91.189.3± 1.4 · 8thboard avg · 78.9
Substance & Value ?15% weight · +10.8 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 90.689.5± 1.6 · 14thboard avg · 78.7
Flow & Emotion ?14% weight · +13.9 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 90.488.3± 1.6 · 9thboard avg · 74.4
YouTube Structure ?12% weight · +15.1 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 89.688.4± 1.9 · 5thboard avg · 73.3
Hook ?10% weight · +9.7 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 92.089.9± 2.3 · 8thboard avg · 80.2
Length Discipline ?8% weight · +23.3 vs avg
best · GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) · 94.390.5± 5.6 · 17thboard avg · 67.2
Anti-Slop ?5% weight · +9.2 vs avg
best · Claude Fable 5 (max effort + 4.8 fallback) · 93.792.0± 1.9 · 28thboard avg · 82.8
Visual Cues ?4% weight · +13.8 vs avg
best · GPT-5.6 Sol (xhigh) · 91.488.3± 1.8 · 22ndboard avg · 74.5

Per-article scores

The same 9 real scripts every current-ranked model writes, scored individually. Different formats stress different skills.

Article 1
opinion / warning explainer
89.2
out of 100
Article 2
news-analysis / skeptical explainer
89.9
out of 100
Article 3
personal roadmap / opinion
88.4
out of 100
Article 4
short explainer
89.1
out of 100
Article 5
news-analysis / opinion explainer
89.8
out of 100
Article 6
founder announcement / personal origin story
89.2
out of 100
Article 7
personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study
90.0
out of 100
Article 8
product release announcement / personal observation
88.6
out of 100
Article 9
career guide / hiring analysis
90.4
out of 100

Consistency: run-to-run variability

Every cell on this page is the mean of 5 independent runs per script; the ± numbers are the run-to-run standard deviation. Overall, Kimi K3 varies by ± 1.6 points between runs versus a board median of ± 3.8, so it is noticeably steadier than the typical model here.

Its steadiest is YouTube Structure (± 1.9 vs ± 3.6 board median), which you can rely on run after run.

MetricThis modelBoard medianVerdict
Tone & Voice ?89.6 ± 1.5± 2.2typical
Writing Craft ?89.3 ± 1.4± 2.0typical
Substance & Value ?89.5 ± 1.6± 2.6typical
Flow & Emotion ?88.3 ± 1.6± 2.6typical
YouTube Structure ?88.4 ± 1.9± 3.6steadier than most
Hook ?89.9 ± 2.3± 3.0typical
Length Discipline ?90.5 ± 5.6± 8.6typical
Anti-Slop ?92.0 ± 1.9± 2.6typical
Visual Cues ?88.3 ± 1.8± 4.7steadier than most

Measured, not modeled

Numbers we log on every run and rarely talk about. None of these affect the writing scores; cost and latency are informational.

Latency per script
367sslower than the board median of 70s
Prompt tokens in
10.8kstyle guide + brief + research packet
Tokens out
15.4kwell above the board median (thinks a lot)
Cost per script
$0.263 ± 0.086measured from actual billed tokens
List price used
$3 / $15 per M tokinput / output

What each judge scored it

The published overall of 89.4 is the consensus of three family-disjoint judges scoring the same 45 stored drafts blind with the identical rubric. The highest and lowest judge differ by 5.3 points on its overall. The three judges essentially agree on this model. How the panel works: methodology.

Claude Opus 5
Anthropic
87.2
GPT-5.6 Sol (medium)
OpenAI
92.5
DeepSeek V4 Flash
DeepSeek
88.4

How we ran Kimi K3

Frequently asked questions

How good is Kimi K3 at writing?

On ToneBench it ranks #8 of 130 with a writing Elo of 2438 and an overall score of 89.4/100. That score comes from writing our 9 real YouTube scripts five times each and scoring every draft blind against our own finished versions across nine writing dimensions.

Is Kimi K3 the best Moonshot (Kimi) model for writing?

Yes. Among the Moonshot (Kimi) configs we tested, Kimi K3 is the strongest writer on the board.

Is Kimi K3 good value for the money?

It costs about $0.263/task. Claude Opus 5 (high) scores higher for less, so it is not the value pick.

What are Kimi K3's strengths and weaknesses?

Its strongest dimension is YouTube Structure (5th on the board, 88.4). Its weakest is Anti-Slop (28th on the board, 92.0). The full nine-metric breakdown is on this page.

Does Kimi K3 write some formats better than others?

It was fairly even across all 9 scripts, topping out on the career guide / hiring analysis (90.4).

How consistent is Kimi K3 between runs?

We run every script 5 times. Kimi K3's overall score varies by about ±1.6 points between runs, versus a board median of ±3.8. That makes it one of the steadier models we test. The full per-metric variability table is on this page.

How was Kimi K3 evaluated?

Via OpenRouter using the exact model/route id moonshotai/kimi-k3, run on 2026-07-29. 5 runs per script, provider-default sampling, no fine-tuning; every draft scored blind with a fixed rubric by a three-family judge panel. Full details in the 'How we ran it' section and the methodology.

Is Kimi K3 open source?

Yes, it is an open-weights model. Among open-weights models it ranks 1st of 47 for writing.

← Back to the full ToneBench leaderboard