Model comparison
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Kimi K2.5
Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite #111 (Supported); Kimi K2.5 #54 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and Kimi K2.5 share 18 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite; 45 to Kimi K2.5.
Updated July 22, 2026- Shared results
- 18
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only
- 2
- Kimi K2.5 only
- 45
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
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.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Kimi K2.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 59.66 to 50.83. 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.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Δ | Kimi K2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite73.2 | Margin→ 5.3 | Kimi K2.578.5 |
| Agentic | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.555.0 |
| Coding | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.559.4 |
| Reasoning | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.561.0 |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.556.9 |
| Math | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.560.6 |
| Multilingual | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.582.3 |
| Inst. Following | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.593.9 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Kimi K2.5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite$0.25 input / $1.5 output | Kimi K2.5$0.6 input / $3 output | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite205 tok/s | Kimi K2.545 tok/s | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite7.50 s | Kimi K2.52.38 s | Kimi K2.5 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite1M | Kimi K2.5256K | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic19 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Kimi K2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 6.2% | 21.7% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 12.2% | 11.5% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 31.3% | 95.9% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 7.1% | 25.4% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 642 | 1009 | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 38.46% | 45.88% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 50.8% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 60.6% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 52.3% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 54.3% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 65.7% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 77.1% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 14.4% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 27.8% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 29.5% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 59.1% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 72.7% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 14.0% | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | — | 8.7% | Not comparable |
Coding11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Kimi K2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 0.00% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 34.7% | 46.8% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 41.9% | 49.0% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 76.8% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | — | 70.8% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 85.0% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 50.7% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 73% | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 58.5% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 77.2% | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 48.7% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Kimi K2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.0% | 35.4% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 82.2% | 87.9% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 16.2% | 29.4% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -15.5% | -8.1% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 36.4% | 34.3% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 81.6% | 64.6% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 87.6% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 87.6% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 69.2% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 87.1% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | — | 87.1% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 30.1% | Not comparable |
Math9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Kimi K2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME 2025Source | — | 96.1% | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | — | 95.8% | Not comparable |
| AIME25 (Arcee)Source | — | 96.3% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 95.4% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 91.1% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 87.1% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 81.8% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | — | 27.900% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | — | 4.200% | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
MultimodalKimi K2.5 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Kimi K2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| CharXivSource | 73.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 75.5% | 75.4% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 78.5% | Not comparable |
| Video-MMESource | — | 87.4% | Not comparable |
| MMVUSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1279 | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or Kimi K2.5?
Kimi K2.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 59.66 to 50.83.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or Kimi K2.5?
Kimi K2.5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.5 versus 73.2. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.