GoogleGemini 3.5 FlashVSMoonshot AI (Kimi)kimi-k2.6
Our Take
We recommend choosing kimi-k2.6 as it delivers superior coding capability while matching the reasoning accuracy of Gemini 3.5 Flash at a 2.0x API cost saving. Choose kimi-k2.6 for superior overall value and coding 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-k2.6 scored 58.6%.
Reasoning Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. Gemini 3.5 Flash scored 92.2%, while kimi-k2.6 scored 90.5%.
Cost Efficiency: Gemini 3.5 Flash pricing ($1.5/M input, $9/M output) is 2.0x cheaper than kimi-k2.6 ($0.95/M input, $4/M output).
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
55.1%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+1.7%)
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)Winner (+3.5%)
58.6%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
90.5%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)2.0x cheaper
$1.71Input: $0.95 | Output: $4.00Context Window
262.14k tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Gemini 3.5 Flash vs kimi-k2.6
kimi-k2.6 is cheaper than Gemini 3.5 Flash. kimi-k2.6 has a blended cost of $1.71/1M tokens, which is about 2.0x cheaper than Gemini 3.5 Flash at $3.38/1M tokens.
kimi-k2.6 is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 58.6% on swe-bench-pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning) compared to Gemini 3.5 Flash which scores 55.1%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Gemini 3.5 Flash and kimi-k2.6.
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.