
Fugu Ultra vs Kilo Code
Sakana's multi-agent answer to Fusion — frontier ensemble without single-vendor risk. vs Fable 5-class intelligence at ~59% less. The split-the-cost play.
What I tested — same prompt, two models
I run the same fixed prompt set through every new model the day it drops — same string, one shot, single HTML file out — and I score the result 0–10 on whether it ran, how close it hit the brief, and how good it looked. Below is what came out when I gave the exact same prompts to Fugu Ultra and Kilo Code, side by side, on 0 shared tasks inside the Agent Operating System.
Both models were given identical prompts inside the Agent Operating System — no help, no iteration, no "best of N" tricks. I run each prompt once, save the HTML file the model produces, and score it 0–10 on whether it ran, how close it hit the brief, and how good it looked. The scoring is mine. The verdicts below are pulled from my source comparison guides at agentos.guide where I publish every score and the reasoning behind it.
Fugu Ultra · Dispatched from Agent OS as the panel-ensemble alternative to OpenRouter Fusion. Bench scored by Claude judge against the same 42 prompts as every other model.
Kilo Code · Used inside Agent OS as a routing layer: Fable 5 generates the plan, cheaper models execute. Bench scoring pending a head-to-head comparison.
Side-by-side on 5 shared tasks
Click any cell to play that model's actual one-shot attempt. Medals are derived from my 0–10 scores per task (highest = 🥇, second = 🥈, third = 🥉).
Strengths & weaknesses I logged
Fugu Ultra
Strengths
- SWE Bench Pro 73.7 · GPQA-D 95.5 · MRCRv2 93.6 — Sakana's published frontier-tier benchmark scores
- Vendor-agnostic ensemble — opt out of specific providers for compliance / export-control
- OpenAI-compatible API at api.sakana.ai — drop-in for existing tooling
Trade-offs
- Panel orchestration adds latency — even a 'pong' burns ~2k orchestration tokens
- Newer than Fusion; less community calibration on long-tail prompts
Kilo Code
Strengths
- Kilo's own rubric: Fable 5 plan = 9.1/10, GPT-5.5 plan = 8.3/10 — Kilo isolates where the intelligence actually lives
- Plan quality stays high while execution cost drops
- Drop-in for Agent OS — Kilo Split framework already wired
Trade-offs
- Adds routing complexity — two model providers in one workflow
- No per-task goldiebench head-to-heads yet
Pricing & context — the spec sheet
| Spec | Fugu Ultra | Kilo Code |
|---|---|---|
| Vendor | Sakana AI | Kilo |
| Context window | 272,000 tokens with the standard rate. Calls exceeding 272K context are billed at the higher 'long-context' rates. | Varies — Kilo splits planning from execution across multiple models |
| Price | $5 / 1M input · $30 / 1M output (Fugu Ultra) | ~59% less than Fable 5 solo |
| Pricing detail | Sakana's multi-agent orchestration: a single API call internally dispatches to multiple frontier models and synthesises the answer. Subscription plans run $20-$200/mo (Standard / Pro / Max); PAYG is $5/M input + $30/M output for Fugu Ultra. Direct competitor to OpenRouter Fusion's panel approach. | Kilo Code is a routing layer that splits planning (heavy model) from execution (cheaper model) so you get Fable-5-class plans driving GPT-5.5-class builds. Total spend lands at ~59% less than running Fable 5 end-to-end. |
| Release | 2026-06-15 | 2026-06-16 |
| Bench coverage | 5/5 scored · avg 7.60/10 | 0/0 scored · avg — |
The verdict — which should you pick?
Not enough scored shared tasks yet for a head-to-head average. The live demos for both are on the matrix above — play them and form your own opinion.
If you only run one of these inside your stack, the head-to-head average above is the call. If you can run both, my honest play is to wire Fugu Ultra and Kilo Code both into the Agent Operating System and dispatch each from the kanban by task type — teams that want fusion-class quality but need a different vendor risk profile → Fugu Ultra, cost-conscious operators who run high-volume agent loops → Kilo Code. That's the same setup I run for the 3,600+ founders inside the AI Profit Boardroom.
FAQ — Fugu Ultra vs Kilo Code
Which is better, Fugu Ultra or Kilo Code?
On Goldie Bench, Fugu Ultra averages no scored verdicts yet across the shared tasks, with 3 gold, 1 silver, 0 bronze overall. Kilo Code averages no scored verdicts yet, with 0 gold, 0 silver, 0 bronze. Not enough scored shared tasks yet to call a winner.
How much does Fugu Ultra cost vs Kilo Code?
Fugu Ultra: Sakana's multi-agent orchestration: a single API call internally dispatches to multiple frontier models and synthesises the answer. Subscription plans run $20-$200/mo (Standard / Pro / Max); PAYG is $5/M input + $30/M output for Fugu Ultra. Direct competitor to OpenRouter Fusion's panel approach. Kilo Code: Kilo Code is a routing layer that splits planning (heavy model) from execution (cheaper model) so you get Fable-5-class plans driving GPT-5.5-class builds. Total spend lands at ~59% less than running Fable 5 end-to-end.
What's the context window for Fugu Ultra vs Kilo Code?
Fugu Ultra has a 272,000 tokens with the standard rate. Calls exceeding 272K context are billed at the higher 'long-context' rates. context window. Kilo Code has a Varies — Kilo splits planning from execution across multiple models context window.
When should I pick Fugu Ultra over Kilo Code?
Pick Fugu Ultra for: Teams that want Fusion-class quality but need a different vendor risk profile; Operators avoiding export-controlled providers (Sakana emphasises this in their pitch); Deep-research workflows where ensemble verdicts beat single-model answers. The trade-off is the weaknesses we logged on the bench: Panel orchestration adds latency — even a 'pong' burns ~2k orchestration tokens; Newer than Fusion; less community calibration on long-tail prompts.
When should I pick Kilo Code over Fugu Ultra?
Pick Kilo Code for: Cost-conscious operators who run high-volume agent loops; Multi-step workflows where the plan is the expensive part; Teams already paying for Fable 5 who want to keep the plan but drop the execution bill. The trade-off is the weaknesses we logged on the bench: Adds routing complexity — two model providers in one workflow; No per-task goldiebench head-to-heads yet.
How does Goldie Bench score Fugu Ultra vs Kilo Code?
Every demo on this page was built by Julian Goldie inside the Agent Operating System — same fixed prompt for both models, one shot, single HTML file out. Each result gets a 0–10 score on whether it ran, how close it hit the brief, and how good it looked. The highest score on each task gets gold; second gets silver; third gets bronze. See methodology for full provenance.
Related comparisons
Other head-to-heads using the same scoring system:
Fugu Ultra vs Opus 4.8 Kilo Code vs Opus 4.8 Fugu Ultra vs GLM-5.2 Kilo Code vs GLM-5.2 Fugu Ultra vs Grok Kilo Code vs Grok Fugu Ultra vs Fusion Kilo Code vs FusionFull model pages: Fugu Ultra · Kilo Code · back to the leaderboard
Run this stack yourself.
Every demo on this bench was built inside the Agent Operating System — one prompt, one shot, single HTML file out. The Agent OS, the prompts, the templates, the weekly walkthroughs and 3,600+ founders shipping with it every day all live inside the AI Profit Boardroom.



