Head-to-head showdown: o3 (Reasoning Frontier) ($10.00 in / $40.00 out per 1M) vs Kimi K2.7 Code (OpenRouter) ($0.67 in / $3.40 out per 1M). Kimi K2.7 Code (OpenRouter) is 12.3× cheaper across standard token mixes, with 1.1M vs 262.1K context windows.
o3 · openai
kimi-k2.7-code · moonshot
Benchmark
| Workload Scenario | o3 (Reasoning Frontier) | Kimi K2.7 Code (OpenRouter) | Price Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1M input tokens (raw text) | $10.00 | $0.67 | +$9.33 |
| 1M output tokens (generation) | $40.00 | $3.40 | +$36.60 |
| 1M tokens · 70% input / 30% output mix | $19.00 | $1.489 | +$17.511 |
| Standard chat turn (4K in / 800 out, 50% cached) | $0.054 | $0.00444 | +$0.0496 |
| Monthly scale (10K requests / day) | $16,200.00 | $1,332.00 | +$14,868.00 |
Negative difference = o3 (Reasoning Frontier) is cheaper. Positive = Kimi K2.7 Code (OpenRouter) is cheaper.
Scaling Curve
Total cost of a token volume at 70/30 input/output split (uncached). Log-log scale.
Verdict
Kimi K2.7 Code (OpenRouter) is cheaper on both input and output rates, so it costs less at every input/output mix. Price alone still isn't the whole decision: capability, latency and context limits (o3 (Reasoning Frontier): 1.1M, Kimi K2.7 Code (OpenRouter): 262.1K) may justify the premium for your task.
FAQ
On input, Kimi K2.7 Code (OpenRouter) is cheaper ($0.67/M vs $10.00/M). On output, Kimi K2.7 Code (OpenRouter) is cheaper ($3.40/M vs $40.00/M). The same model is cheaper on both sides, so it wins at every mix.
A chat-style request (4,000 input + 800 output tokens, 50% cached) costs $0.054 on o3 (Reasoning Frontier) and $0.00444 on Kimi K2.7 Code (OpenRouter) — Kimi K2.7 Code (OpenRouter) is 12.2× more expensive for that workload.
o3 (Reasoning Frontier) supports 1,050,000 tokens (128K max output); Kimi K2.7 Code (OpenRouter) supports 262,144 (235.9K max output). o3 (Reasoning Frontier) fits 4.0× more context, which matters for long documents and agents.