Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
48
Kimi K2.5
64
Verified leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite unranked · Kimi K2.5 #11
Pick Kimi K2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 1M context window.
Multimodal
+5.3 difference
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Kimi K2.5
$0.25 / $1.5
$0.6 / $3
205 t/s
45 t/s
7.50s
2.38s
1M
256K
Pick Kimi K2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 1M context window.
Kimi K2.5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 64 to 48. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Kimi K2.5's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 78.5 against 73.2.
Kimi K2.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.60 input / $3.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.25 input / $1.50 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite. That is roughly 2.0x on output cost alone. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Kimi K2.5.
Kimi K2.5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 64 to 48.
Kimi K2.5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.5 versus 73.2. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.