Claude sonnet 4.6 does not enable reasoning mode by default. To access its deep reasoning capabilities, users would typically need to call the native Claude API. To make this capability available through an OpenAI-compatible interface, we provide the claude-sonnet-4-6-think model, which has reasoning mode pre-enabled and a default 32k-token context window, allowing it to be called directly via the OpenAI unified API. Claude sonnet 4.5 Think is a reasoning-focused variant of Claude sonnet 4.6 designed for advanced tasks that require rigorous reasoning, complex decision-making, and long-chain analysis. Aside from its enhanced reasoning mechanism, all other capabilities remain consistent with the standard Claude sonnet 4.6 model, making it well suited for complex engineering problem decomposition, multi-stage planning, and logic-intensive analysis.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 Thinking vs Kimi K3
Output tokens cost $15.00 per million on Claude Sonnet 4.6 Thinking and $15.00 per million on Kimi K3. Input tokens cost $3.00 per million on Claude Sonnet 4.6 Thinking and $3.00 per million on Kimi K3. Cached input tokens are billed at $0.30 per million on Claude Sonnet 4.6 Thinking and $0.30 per million on Kimi K3. Context lengths are 200,000 tokens on Claude Sonnet 4.6 Thinking and 1,048,576 tokens on Kimi K3. Time to first token (TTFT) measured on AIHubMix is 1.2s on Claude Sonnet 4.6 Thinking and 0.9s on Kimi K3. Measured output throughput is 67.8 tok/s on Claude Sonnet 4.6 Thinking and 73.1 tok/s on Kimi K3. On the LMArena coding leaderboard Claude Sonnet 4.6 Thinking scores 1528 and Kimi K3 scores 1531.
Kimi K3 is Kimi’s flagship model for long-horizon coding and end-to-end knowledge work, with a 1M-token context window and industry-leading intelligence.
Pricing & Specifications
Prices are per million tokens. Time to First Token and throughput are rolling averages measured on AIHubMix.
Promotional prices show the discounted rate; see each model page for promotion windows.
Activity Past 30 Days
Daily traffic served through AIHubMix — how demand for each model is trending.
Tokens / day
Requests / day
Performance Past 3 Days
Measured on real AIHubMix traffic, hourly buckets. Gaps mean no traffic in that hour.
Throughput (tok/s)
TTFT (s)
Uptime (%)
LMArena Benchmarks
LMArena ratings by capability (Bradley-Terry, commonly called Elo). Higher is better.
Source: LMArena (arena.ai) leaderboard, imported by AIHubMix. Models without published ratings are omitted per chart.
Cost calculator
Estimate your monthly bill for the same workload on each model.
Monthly = daily × 30. Discounted rates applied where a promotion is active.
FAQ
Which is cheaper: Claude Sonnet 4.6 Thinking, Kimi K3?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 Thinking: $15.00/M output tokens; Kimi K3: $15.00/M. Use the cost calculator above to estimate your own workload.
How do their coding arena scores compare?
Kimi K3: 1531; Claude Sonnet 4.6 Thinking: 1528 (LMArena coding leaderboard).
Which responds faster?
Kimi K3: 0.9s time to first token measured on AIHubMix; see the live performance charts above for how each model behaves across the day.
How large is each context window?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 Thinking accepts 200,000 and Kimi K3 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens. Maximum output per request is 32,000 tokens on Claude Sonnet 4.6 Thinking and 1,048,576 tokens on Kimi K3.
Which one generates tokens faster?
Kimi K3 at 73.1 tok/s and Claude Sonnet 4.6 Thinking at 67.8 tok/s, measured as output throughput on AIHubMix — a separate metric from time to first token.
What inputs and capabilities does each model support?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 Thinking accepts image and text input and supports thinking, tool calling, function calling and structured outputs; Kimi K3 accepts text, image and video input and supports thinking, function calling and structured outputs.
Can I call Claude Sonnet 4.6 Thinking and Kimi K3 with the same API key?
Yes. AIHubMix serves every model on this page behind one OpenAI-compatible endpoint, so switching between them is a one-line change to the model field — no second account, key or SDK.
Popular comparisons
Related model match-ups readers also look at.
