Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Kimi K3.1 Pro
Kimi K3.1 Pro has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
Updated November 11, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Share or export
Decision reading
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. 8 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- API price per 1M tokens
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview: No comparable API price
Kimi K3.1 Pro: $2 input / $10 output
- Context window
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview: 1M
Kimi K3.1 Pro: 1.05M
- Released
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview: November 11, 2026
Kimi K3.1 Pro: October 23, 2026
- Shared results
- 8
- ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview only
- 7
- Kimi K3.1 Pro only
- 39
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: Kimi K3.1 Pro. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview and Kimi K3.1 Pro are not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limitedChat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-ratesCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-ratesRepository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
—ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro
Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8
The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
Or describe your own job
The LLM Selector reads what you need a model for and returns a shortlist, ranked in the same order the job pages publish.
Describe the task and constraints. This selector recommends models; it cannot carry out the task or access your files and accounts.
We keep what you type here, drafts included, for 180 days, and after that only the job and requirements read from it. Nothing is tied to your IP address or account. Leave out names and other personal details. Privacy
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
7 ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview only
8 Shared
39 Kimi K3.1 Pro only
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
HLE w/o toolsKnowledge
Normalized gap 4.7ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview:46.4%Kimi K3.1 Pro:51.1%BrowseCompAgentic
Normalized gap 4.7ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview:87.4%Kimi K3.1 Pro:92.1%
Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Agentic
Not comparable- ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- 72.7
- Supported · #10/132
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 10 vs 19 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 8 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- 70.6
- Supported · #17/158
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- 73.9
- Estimated · #12/67
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 15 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- 74.5
- Supported · #13/179
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 5 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview | Kimi K3.1 Pro | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not ranked | 72.7Supported · #10/132 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 10 vs 19 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 8 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not ranked | 70.6Supported · #17/158 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 73.9Estimated · #12/67 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 15 public rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not ranked | 74.5Supported · #13/179 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 5 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- $0.007
- Fits in one request
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- $0.13
- Fits in one request
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- $0.18
- Fits in one request
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview has no comparable published API token rate.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationERNIE 5.5 Flash PreviewKimi K3.1 Pro
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview
Kimi K3.1 Pro
1.05M
API model ID
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview
baidu/ernie-5.5-flash-preview:free
OpenRouter ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview (free) routeKimi K3.1 Pro
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview
No comparable hosted API rate
Baidu Qianfan model pageKimi K3.1 Pro
$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview
Kimi K3.1 Pro
text, image
Kimi-K3.1-Pro model cardDocumented outputs
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview
Kimi K3.1 Pro
Provider availability
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview
Generally Available · Baidu Qianfan API, OpenRouter (free, served by Baidu)
Baidu: Introducing ERNIE 5.5 Flash PreviewKimi K3.1 Pro
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview
Reasoning
Kimi K3.1 Pro
Reasoning
Weight access
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview
Pending
Kimi K3.1 Pro
Open Weight
License
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview
Pending
Kimi K3.1 Pro
Open Weight
Release date
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview
2026-11-11
Kimi K3.1 Pro
2026-10-23
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Kimi K3.1 Pro has the larger documented window (1.05M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview or Kimi K3.1 Pro?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview or Kimi K3.1 Pro?
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview and Kimi K3.1 Pro are not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview or Kimi K3.1 Pro?
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview or Kimi K3.1 Pro?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview or Kimi K3.1 Pro?
Kimi K3.1 Pro has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 1M.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview
API / moNo API price on file
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Kimi K3.1 Pro
API / mo$9,000
Self-host / mo$57,606
Break-evenNot reached at 70% load
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence54 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 4.0
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview46.50%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro65.70%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro leads this result
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview21.0%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro38.1%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro leads this result
AutomationBench
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview61.9%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
APEX-Agents
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview64.2%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro69.4%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro leads this result
DRACO
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview84.9%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
SpreadsheetBench 2
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview36.4%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam (CLI)
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview29.0%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro44.2%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro leads this result
Toolathlon-Verified
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview75.0%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview84.6%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview87.4%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro92.1%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro leads this result
HLE w/ tools
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro70.0%SourceNot directly comparable
BioMysteryBench
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro80.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro43.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Frontier Finance
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro58.6%SourceNot directly comparable
HANDBOOK.md
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro44.6%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro79.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Business Operation
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro37.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Financial Modeling
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro57.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Financial Research
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro70.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Kimi Hallu Bench Hard (tools)
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro8.3%SourceNot directly comparable
ExploitGym
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro20.7%SourceNot directly comparable
MazeBench
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro2%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld 2.1
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro79.6%SourceNot directly comparable
CWE-bench
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro45.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
DeepSWE
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview71.2%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro75.5%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro leads this result
ProgramBench
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview29.5%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview64.8%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
ProgramBench (binary)
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro31.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Kimi Code Bench v2
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro77.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Kimi Code Bench 3.0 Long-horizon
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro61.2%SourceNot directly comparable
sweMarathon
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro51.7%SourceNot directly comparable
PostTrainBench v1.2
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro36.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Bug Hunt Bench
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro36.0 fixesSourceNot directly comparable
FrontierCode 2.0
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro19.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
OfficeQA Pro v2
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview67.9%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro64.4%SourceERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview leads this result
OfficeQA Pro
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro67.4%SourceNot directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro0.728SourceNot directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro0.927SourceNot directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro84.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ Python
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro90%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro93.4%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro89%SourceNot directly comparable
Chartography (tools)
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro90.2%SourceNot directly comparable
BabyVision w/ Python
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro95.4%SourceNot directly comparable
ZeroBench
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro39.0%SourceNot directly comparable
ZeroBench w/ Python
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro63.0%SourceNot directly comparable
GDP.pdf (Gemini judge)
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro34.6%SourceNot directly comparable
GDP.pdf w/ Python (Gemini judge)
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro85.7%SourceNot directly comparable
PerceptionBench
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro68.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
HLE w/o tools
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview46.4%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro51.1%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro leads this result
GPQA
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro94.2%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA-D
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro94.2%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro70%SourceNot directly comparable
Kimi Hallu Bench
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview—Kimi K3.1 Pro5.4%SourceNot directly comparable
54 public results · 8 shared
Watch ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 7,000+ subscribers.
Last updated November 11, 2026