Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Kimi K2.7 Code
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite unranked (Not scored); Kimi K2.7 Code #87 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Kimi K2.7 Code share 13 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 8 results are unique to Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; 10 to Kimi K2.7 Code.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
- 8
- Kimi K2.7 Code only
- 10
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Kimi K2.7 Code is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 4 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.
Kimi K2.7 Code is priced 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 has the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Kimi K2.7 Code.
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 K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite63.4 | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.7 CodeNot measured |
| Coding | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.2 | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.7 CodeNot measured |
| Reasoning | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite72.2 | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.7 CodeNot measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Kimi K2.7 Code | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite$0.3 input / $2.5 output | Kimi K2.7 Code$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 K2.7 CodeNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot available | Kimi K2.7 CodeNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite1M | Kimi K2.7 Code256K | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Kimi K2.7 Code | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 54% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 74% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1140 | 1187 | Kimi K2.7 Code leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 26.8% | 29.6% | Kimi K2.7 Code leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 32.0% | 34.3% | Kimi K2.7 Code leads |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 634 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 16.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Kimi Claw 24/7Source | — | 46.9% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 76% | Not comparable |
| MCP Mark VerifiedSource | — | 81.1% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 90.1% | Not comparable |
Coding8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Kimi K2.7 Code | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 54.0% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 54.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 49.3% | 60.8% | Kimi K2.7 Code leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 40.9% | 47.5% | Kimi K2.7 Code leads |
| Kimi Code Bench v2Source | — | 62.0% | Not comparable |
| ProgramBenchSource | — | 53.6% | Not comparable |
| MLS-Bench LiteSource | — | 35.1% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | — | 49.7% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Kimi K2.7 Code | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 36.5% | 42.0% | Kimi K2.7 Code leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 83.8% | 89.6% | Kimi K2.7 Code leads |
| AA-HLESource | 17.5% | 32.8% | Kimi K2.7 Code leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 6.9% | -10.7% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 30.3% | 38.6% | Kimi K2.7 Code leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 33.5% | 80.3% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Kimi K2.7 Code | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 63.1% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Kimi K2.7 Code on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Kimi K2.7 Code today?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: $0.30 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens Kimi K2.7 Code: $0.95 input / $4.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
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.