Model comparison
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Head-to-head evidence from 19 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 (Reasoning) #57 (Estimated). 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 (Reasoning) share 19 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite; 8 to Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning).
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 19
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only
- 1
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) only
- 8
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) 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 19 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 (Reasoning) is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 59.35 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 (Reasoning)'s sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 78.5 against 73.2.
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) 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. Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning).
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 (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite73.2 | Margin→ 5.3 | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)78.5 |
| Agentic | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)55.0 |
| Coding | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)76.8 |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)87.2 |
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 (Reasoning) | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite$0.25 input / $1.5 output | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)$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 K2.5 (Reasoning)Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite7.50 s | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite1M | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)128K | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 6.2% | 21.7% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 12.2% | 11.5% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 31.3% | 95.9% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 7.1% | 25.4% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 642 | 1009 | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 38.46% | 32.58% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 50.8% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 60.6% | Not comparable |
Coding4 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.0% | 35.4% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 82.2% | 87.9% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 16.2% | 29.4% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -15.5% | -8.1% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) 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 (Reasoning) leads |
| GPQASource | — | 87.6% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 87.1% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME 2025Source | — | 96.1% | Not comparable |
MultimodalKimi K2.5 (Reasoning) wins4 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 77.2% | 70.2% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 59.35 to 50.83.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) 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.
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.