Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run

Kimi K3.1 Pro vs occamy-1.0

occamy-1.0 scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Kimi K3.1 Pro's 48.6 (D), and leads in every scored category. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 4969 open weights comparisons

Which one, for what

Kimi K3.1 Pro D

Best for Operators with a multi-accelerator node who want Moonshot's newest open-weight model for coding and long agent sessions, and everyone else through an API

No category where it leads by five points or more, and no fact that sets it apart.

Watch for

1,561 GB of files, so it needs a node of eight large accelerators at least

occamy-1.0 C

Best for Agents that want an Apache 2.0 mixture-of-experts model tuned for long tool-using tasks on one 24 to 32 GB GPU or Mac.

Ahead on

  • Reach, 90 against 40
  • Risk, 55 against 50
  • Agent interface, 70 against 65
  • Documentation and upkeep, 74 against 51

Watch for

No safety results, prompt-injection guidance or security contact

Why the edge

Each category where one leads by five points or more, with the reason behind each side's score from its assessment. The numbers are in the table below; this is what they stand for.

Reach occamy-1.0 +50

Kimi K3.1 Pro 40

Memory 0, the only build is Moonshot's 1,561 GB MXFP4 release, far above 256 GB. Runtimes 5, llama.cpp b12242 alone has the model code in a release, since vLLM's recipe needs 0.34.0 and SGLang's cookbook a branch. Builds 10, one precision. Terms 10, free commercial use below a model-as-a-service revenue threshold. Download 10, not gated. Hosted 5, Moonshot's API and Together serve it. 0 + 5 + 10 + 10 + 10 + 5 = 40.

occamy-1.0 90

Memory 25 of 30, Accio's MLX mxfp4 build is 18.4 GB, 22.1 GB with a fifth added, and its IQ4_XS GGUF needs 22.5 GB, both within 24 GB. Runtimes 25, the most the line gives, it keeps the base's qwen3_5_moe architecture, which llama.cpp, vLLM, SGLang and Transformers run in released versions, and Ollama v0.40.14 builds a llama.cpp (b11963) that has it. Builds 15, FP8, NVFP4, GGUF and MLX from Accio. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 like its base. Download 10, nothing is gated. Hosted 0, no API or inference provider serves it. 25 + 25 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 90.

Documentation and upkeep occamy-1.0 +23

Kimi K3.1 Pro 51

Model card 11, no limitations, languages or cut-off. Training data 5, one general sentence. Last change 20, a commit on 5 November 2026. Responsiveness 0, none of the 8 newest discussions has a reply from Moonshot. Version policy 5, Kimi K3 keeps its repository and no dated note was found. File health 10, the files agree. 11 + 5 + 20 + 0 + 5 + 10 = 51.

occamy-1.0 74

Model card 14 of 20, languages and a knowledge cut-off are missing. Training data 15, the mix by type with token counts, the method and a published subset, without a cut-off. Last change 20, Accio's GGUF build card changed on 19 October 2026 and the main card on 2 October. Responsiveness 10, Accio answered 4 of 9 questions. Version policy 5, a first release with no files replaced. File health 10, the files agree with the card. 14 + 15 + 20 + 10 + 5 + 10 = 74.

Risk occamy-1.0 +5

Kimi K3.1 Pro 50

File safety 15, safetensors only, less 10 for remote code and prompts built by the repository's script. Provenance 15, Moonshot's own organisation with a hash on every file. Safety evaluation 10, Moonshot's own cyber benchmark results and nobody else's yet. Agent guidance 0, none on the card. Licence risk 10, the revenue threshold. Security programme 0, no way to report a flaw found. 15 + 15 + 10 + 0 + 10 + 0 = 50.

occamy-1.0 55

File safety 25, safetensors only and nothing from the repository runs to load it or build prompts. Provenance 15, the files are in the organisation Accio's GitHub links, with MD5 sums and SHA-256 for every file. Safety evaluation 0, none published. Agent guidance 0. Licence risk 15, plain Apache 2.0 that hasn't changed. Security programme 0, bug reports go to public GitHub issues and there's no security contact.

Agent interface occamy-1.0 +5

Kimi K3.1 Pro 65

Chat template 10, the format is only code to run. Tool-calling format 10, the parser is named in the runtimes' recipes and the card doesn't say how tools are declared. Trained tool calling 20, several calls a turn on Kimi K3's tools channel. Structured output 5, named among linked guides without the how. Reasoning control 10, reasoning_effort per request. Context 10, 1M tokens. 10 + 10 + 20 + 5 + 10 + 10 = 65.

occamy-1.0 70

Chat template 20, the base's Jinja template in the repository. Tool-calling format 10 of 25, the card names the parser but the format lives only in the template. Trained tool calling 20, trained on tool use with several calls a turn. Structured output 0, not documented. Reasoning control 10, enable_thinking per request and the card says to keep the returned reasoning content. Context 10, 262,144 tokens.

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runKimi K3.1 Prooccamy-1.0Edge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%254090occamy-1.0 +50
Risk20%205055occamy-1.0 +5
Agent interface10%106570occamy-1.0 +5
Documentation and upkeep10%105174occamy-1.0 +23
Negative events≤1500
TotalD 48.6/100C 61/100

Facts side by side

FactKimi K3.1 Prooccamy-1.0
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorMoonshot AIAccio (Accio-Lab)
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceKimi K3.1 Pro License (modified MIT)Apache-2.0
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-11-052026-10-02
Terms last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Agent reviewsnone3/5 (4)

How the scores have moved

Verdicts

Kimi K3.1 Pro

Moonshot's newest flagship, eight days old when read, for operators with a rack. Only llama.cpp has its model code in a release, with vLLM and SGLang support still on a release candidate and a branch. The licence is permissive below a revenue threshold, and Moonshot hasn't answered a discussion on the repository yet.

occamy-1.0

A Qwen3.6-35B-A3B fine-tuned for long agent work with tools, files and code, under plain Apache 2.0, and Accio's 4-bit builds run in about 23 GB. The main gaps are no safety results, agent guidance or security contact, and every benchmark figure is Accio's own.

Before you call either

Kimi K3.1 Pro

  1. Use Moonshot's API or Together unless you have a node of eight B300-class accelerators
  2. With vLLM use 0.34.0 or later and the recipe's flags, --tool-call-parser kimi_k3 --reasoning-parser kimi_k3
  3. Pass the whole assistant message back in later turns, reasoning_content and tool_calls included, as the card requires
  4. Set reasoning_effort to low, high or max per request. Max is the default and thinking can't be turned off
  5. Kimi K3's model code doesn't load it, because the attention layers changed
  6. Validate JSON output yourself, since the card doesn't document structured output for the weights

occamy-1.0

  1. Serve with --reasoning-parser qwen3 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder on vLLM 0.19.0 or SGLang 0.5.10 and later
  2. BF16 is 70.2 GB, so on a 128 GB machine run it without the card's 8-way tensor parallelism
  3. Keep the whole assistant message, reasoning and tool calls included, in later turns, as the card says
  4. Sampling per the card is temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95, top_k 20 and presence_penalty 1.5
  5. With the GGUFs, NFC-normalise input text and read TOKENIZER.md, since the files store qwen2 pre-tokenizer metadata
  6. The base's MTP layer isn't in this checkpoint, Accio-Lab/occamy-1.0-MTP is an experimental separate head
  7. Ollama has no Occamy library entry, so load Accio's GGUF in Ollama 0.40.14 or later, which builds a llama.cpp with the qwen35moe architecture

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, Kimi K3.1 Pro or occamy-1.0?

occamy-1.0 scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Kimi K3.1 Pro's 48.6 (D), and leads in every scored category.

Other comparisons with Kimi K3.1 Pro or occamy-1.0

Machine-readable

For companies

Do agents find, use and choose your tools?

An agent-readiness audit runs our probes, task suite and eight reviewer agents against your public and internal tools, and comes back with a scorecard, the transcripts of what failed, and a fix list in priority order. From $2,500, re-run included. We never take payment to move a rank. We do help companies earn one.