Suspected incorrect metering and pricing for FW-Kimi-K3 Data Zone Standard — Billing SR #2608160050000546

Stan Novo 0 Reputation points
2026-08-18T09:37:03.9133333+00:00

I need a technical investigation of the metering for my FW-Kimi-K3 Data Zone Standard deployment in Microsoft Foundry.

I already have a Billing Support case open: SR #2608160050000546. Billing Support advised that validating token classification, cached-input detection, meter mapping, and effective unit prices requires investigation by the Microsoft Foundry technical team.

For August 15, 2026, Foundry Monitor reports approximately:

  • Input tokens: 6.19M

Output tokens: 73.99K

Total tokens: 6.26M

Requests: 181

Azure Sponsorship usage shows:

Model 15 Inp DZ Tokens: $55.70

Model 14 Inp glbl Tokens: $6.18

Model 12 Inp glbl Tokens: $0.74

Total: $62.62

These charges correspond almost exactly to a flat rate of $10 per 1M tokens:

$55.70 ≈ 5.570M tokens × $10/M

$6.18 ≈ 0.618M tokens × $10/M

$0.74 ≈ 0.074M tokens × $10/M

The combined quantity is approximately 6.262M tokens, which closely matches the 6.26M total tokens reported by Foundry Monitor.

This appears inconsistent with FW-Kimi-K3 pricing, which differentiates between input, cached input, and output tokens.

Could you please confirm:

What Model 12, Model 14, and Model 15 represent.

The effective unit price applied to each meter.

Whether input, cached-input, and output tokens are being mapped to the correct meters.

Whether cached input is being detected and billed correctly.

Whether my deployment is being incorrectly billed at approximately $10/M across all token types.

The deployment itself is working correctly. The issue is specifically the metering and pricing configuration.

Please escalate this to the Microsoft Foundry service team if service-level telemetry is required, and coordinate the findings with Billing Support under SR #2608160050000546 so that any incorrect charges can be recalculated and credited.

I can provide screenshots from Foundry Monitor and Azure Sponsorship Usage.Suspected incorrect metering and pricing for FW-Kimi-K3 Data Zone Standard — Billing SR #2608160050000546

I need a technical investigation of the metering for my FW-Kimi-K3 Data Zone Standard deployment in Microsoft Foundry.

I already have a Billing Support case open: SR #2608160050000546. Billing Support advised that validating token classification, cached-input detection, meter mapping, and effective unit prices requires investigation by the Microsoft Foundry technical team.

For August 15, 2026, Foundry Monitor reports approximately:

Input tokens: 6.19M

Output tokens: 73.99K

Total tokens: 6.26M

Requests: 181

Azure Sponsorship usage shows:

Model 15 Inp DZ Tokens: $55.70

Model 14 Inp glbl Tokens: $6.18

Model 12 Inp glbl Tokens: $0.74

Total: $62.62

These charges correspond almost exactly to a flat rate of $10 per 1M tokens:

$55.70 ≈ 5.570M tokens × $10/M

$6.18 ≈ 0.618M tokens × $10/M

$0.74 ≈ 0.074M tokens × $10/M

The combined quantity is approximately 6.262M tokens, which closely matches the 6.26M total tokens reported by Foundry Monitor.

This appears inconsistent with FW-Kimi-K3 pricing, which differentiates between input, cached input, and output tokens.

Could you please confirm:

What Model 12, Model 14, and Model 15 represent.

The effective unit price applied to each meter.

Whether input, cached-input, and output tokens are being mapped to the correct meters.

Whether cached input is being detected and billed correctly.

Whether my deployment is being incorrectly billed at approximately $10/M across all token types.

The deployment itself is working correctly. The issue is specifically the metering and pricing configuration.

Please escalate this to the Microsoft Foundry service team if service-level telemetry is required, and coordinate the findings with Billing Support under SR #2608160050000546 so that any incorrect charges can be recalculated and credited.

I can provide screenshots from Foundry Monitor and Azure Sponsorship Usage.

Foundry Models
Foundry Models

A catalog of AI models in Microsoft Foundry that you can discover, compare, and deploy using Azure’s built‑in tools for evaluation, fine‑tuning, and inference


Your answer

Answers can be marked as 'Accepted' by the question author and 'Recommended' by moderators, which helps users know the answer solved the author's problem.