Moondream 3.1 vs Fugu Ultra
Moondream 3.1 costs 12.0x less per output token than Fugu Ultra ($2.50 vs $30.00 per million). Updated October 23, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $2.50
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $30.00
Moondream 3.1 or Fugu Ultra: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Moondream 3.1 for output tokens 12.0x cheaper ($2.50 vs $30.00 per million).
No benchmark has tested either model yet, so price and context are the only way to compare them.
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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Long documents
Listed context window
Fugu Ultra
Fugu Ultra takes 1M tokens against 32K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Moondream 3.1
Moondream 3.1 $0.0015, Fugu Ultra $0.020 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Moondream 3.1 not benchmarked, Fugu Ultra 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 Fugu Ultra $30.00 per million output tokens, 12.0x apart.
- Context window
- Moondream 3.1 takes 32K tokens, Fugu Ultra 1M.
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.
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 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Moondream 3.1 costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
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.
| Specification | Moondream 3.1 | Sakana Fugu Ultra |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Moondream | Sakana |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | October 15, 2026 | June 24, 2026 |
| Context window | 32K | 1M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.30 | $5.00 |
| Output $/Mtok | $2.50 | $30.00 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Moondream 3.1 better than Fugu Ultra for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Moondream 3.1 for output tokens 12.0x cheaper ($2.50 vs $30.00 per million).
Which is cheaper, Moondream 3.1 or Fugu Ultra?
Moondream 3.1 costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; Fugu Ultra costs $5.00 and $30.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Moondream 3.1 or Fugu Ultra?
Fugu Ultra, with 1M tokens against 32K.
Has any benchmark tested both Moondream 3.1 and Fugu Ultra?
No benchmark has tested either model yet, so price and context are the only way to compare them. Data as of October 23, 2026.