GoogleGemini 3.5 FlashVSMoonshot AI (Kimi)kimi-k2.5
Our Take
We recommend Gemini 3.5 Flash if you need peak intelligence for reasoning and coding tasks, or the 2.8x cheaper kimi-k2.5 to optimize your budget for high-volume pipelines. While Gemini 3.5 Flash holds a clear performance lead, it carries a heavy price premium. Choose Gemini 3.5 Flash for complex logic, or kimi-k2.5 for budget efficiency.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Coding Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the SWE-bench Pro benchmark. Gemini 3.5 Flash scored 55.1%, while kimi-k2.5 scored 50.7%.
Reasoning Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. Gemini 3.5 Flash scored 92.2%, while kimi-k2.5 scored 87.6%.
Cost Efficiency: kimi-k2.5 pricing ($0.6/M input, $3/M output) is 2.8x cheaper than Gemini 3.5 Flash ($1.5/M input, $9/M output).
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+4.4%)
55.1%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+4.6%)
92.2%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$3.38Input: $1.50 | Output: $9.00Context WindowLarger
1.05M tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
50.7%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
87.6%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)2.8x cheaper
$1.20Input: $0.60 | Output: $3.00Context Window
262.14k tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Gemini 3.5 Flash vs kimi-k2.5
kimi-k2.5 is cheaper than Gemini 3.5 Flash. kimi-k2.5 has a blended cost of $1.20/1M tokens, which is about 2.8x cheaper than Gemini 3.5 Flash at $3.38/1M tokens.
Gemini 3.5 Flash is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 55.1% on swe-bench-pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning) compared to kimi-k2.5 which scores 50.7%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Gemini 3.5 Flash and kimi-k2.5.
Do you want to find a model for your constraints?
Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.