Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Moondream 3.1 vs o4 Mini High

Updated October 21, 2026. No benchmark has tested both models yet. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

M Moondream 3.1Moondream
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$2.50
o4 Mini HighOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$4.40
vs $2.50 vs $4.40 per 1M output tokens. Moondream 3.1 is 1.8x cheaper.

Decision reading

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Moondream 3.1 has the edge where output tokens cost 1.8x less.

No benchmark has tested both yet. Moondream 3.1 has none yet; o4 Mini High on ALE-Bench and GDPval. Compare them on price and context instead.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Moondream 3.1 not benchmarked, o4 Mini High not benchmarked.
Widest category
None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
Widest single gap
None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
Output price
Moondream 3.1 $2.50 against o4 Mini High $4.40 per million output tokens, 1.8x apart.
Context window
Moondream 3.1 takes 32K tokens, o4 Mini High 200K.

Benchmark by benchmark

Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.

CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index1 board measured
Coding benchmarks for Moondream 3.1 and o4 Mini High
BenchmarkMoondream 3.1o4 Mini HighLeader
ALE-BenchNot measured826.2Only o4 Mini High measured
Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
Agentic work benchmarks for Moondream 3.1 and o4 Mini High
BenchmarkMoondream 3.1o4 Mini HighLeader
GDPvalNot measured25.3%Only o4 Mini High measured
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Moondream 3.1$0.0015Fits in one request
o4 Mini High$0.0033Fits in one request

Moondream 3.1 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Moondream 3.1$0.022Exceeds the context window
o4 Mini High$0.068Fits in one request

Moondream 3.1 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Moondream 3.1$0.085Exceeds the context window
o4 Mini High$0.264Exceeds the context window

Moondream 3.1 costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Moondream 3.1 and o4 Mini High
SpecificationMoondream 3.1OpenAI o4 Mini High
MakerMoondreamOpenAI
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedOctober 15, 2026April 16, 2025
Context window32K200K
Input $/Mtok$0.30$1.10
Output $/Mtok$2.50$4.40
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Moondream 3.1 better than o4 Mini High for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Moondream 3.1 has the edge where output tokens cost 1.8x less.

Which is cheaper, Moondream 3.1 or o4 Mini High?

Moondream 3.1 costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; o4 Mini High costs $1.10 and $4.40. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Moondream 3.1 or o4 Mini High?

o4 Mini High, with 200K tokens against 32K.

Has any benchmark tested both Moondream 3.1 and o4 Mini High?

No benchmark has tested both yet. Moondream 3.1 has none yet; o4 Mini High on ALE-Bench and GDPval. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 21, 2026.

Compare next