Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Kimi K2.6
Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite unranked (Not scored); Kimi K2.6 #74 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Kimi K2.6 share 18 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; 33 to Kimi K2.6.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 18
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
- 3
- Kimi K2.6 only
- 33
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite makes more sense if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 1M context window; Kimi K2.6 is the better fit if coding is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Kimi K2.6 finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Kimi K2.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.95 input / $4.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Kimi K2.6.
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 3.5 Flash-Lite | Δ | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.2 | Margin→ 10.2 | Kimi K2.664.4 |
| Agentic | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite63.4 | Margin→ 10.1 | Kimi K2.673.5 |
| Reasoning | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite72.2 | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.6Not measured |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.642.2 |
| Math | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.667.1 |
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.679.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 54%B 66.7%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 12.7Terminal-Bench 2.0: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scored 54%; Kimi K2.6 scored 66.7%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 54.2%B 58.6%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 4.4SWE-bench Pro: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scored 54.2%; Kimi K2.6 scored 58.6%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
OSWorld-Verified
AgenticA 74%B 73.1%Winner: Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteΔ 0.9OSWorld-Verified: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scored 74%; Kimi K2.6 scored 73.1%. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Kimi K2.6 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite$0.3 input / $2.5 output | Kimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 output | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot available | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot available | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite1M | Kimi K2.6256K | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticKimi K2.6 wins19 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 54% | 66.7% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 74% | 73.1% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1140 | 1189 | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 26.8% | 30.3% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 32.0% | 34.5% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 634 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 16.5% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 83.2% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 50% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 55.9% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 92.5% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 95.9% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 28.5% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 56.82% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 18.0% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 4.6% | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | — | 43.9% | Not comparable |
CodingKimi K2.6 wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 54.0% | 66.7% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 54.2% | 58.6% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 49.3% | 61.8% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 40.9% | 53.5% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 80.2% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 89.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 76.7% | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 52.2% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 37.89% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | — | 47.6% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 36.5% | 44.2% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 83.8% | 91.1% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 17.5% | 35.9% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 6.9% | 6.4% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 30.3% | 32.8% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 33.5% | 39.3% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| GPQASource | — | 90.5% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 90.5% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 34.7% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multimodal7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 79.0% | 79.4% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 79.4% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource | — | 80.1% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 87.4% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 96.9% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1306 | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 76.0% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Kimi K2.6?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Kimi K2.6 are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 64.4 versus 54.2. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.5 versus 63.4. Inside this category, GDPval-AA 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.