Skip to main content

Model comparison

Gemma 3 27B vs Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 16 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

41.57/100
Margin
17.8pts
winning →
59.35/100
0 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 3 27B #164 (Supported); Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) #57 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Gemma 3 27B and Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) share 16 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Gemma 3 27B; 11 to Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning).

Updated July 22, 2026
Shared results
16
Gemma 3 27B only
0
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) only
11
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for Gemma 3 27B and Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) is coming soon on BenchLM.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 16 shared benchmark results across 6 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 K2.5 (Reasoning) is priced at $0.60 input / $3.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemma 3 27B. Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has the larger context window at 128K, compared with 32K for Gemma 3 27B.

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 scores and score margins for Gemma 3 27B and Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
CategoryGemma 3 27BΔKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
AgenticGemma 3 27BNot measuredMarginNo overlapKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)55.0
CodingGemma 3 27BNot measuredMarginNo overlapKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)76.8
KnowledgeGemma 3 27BNot measuredMarginNo overlapKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)87.2
MultimodalGemma 3 27BNot measuredMarginNo overlapKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)78.5

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricGemma 3 27BKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGemma 3 27B$0 input / $0 outputKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)$0.6 input / $3 outputGemma 3 27B has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondGemma 3 27B31 tok/sKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGemma 3 27B2.04 sKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGemma 3 27B32KKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)128KKimi K2.5 (Reasoning) lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Result
AA Agentic IndexSource 0.3%21.7%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 10.5%95.9%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads
GDPval-AASource 0.0%25.4%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads
GDPval-AASource -1441009Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 50.8%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 60.6%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource 11.5%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 32.58%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Result
AA Coding IndexSource 10.1%46.8%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads
AA-SciCodeSource 21.2%49.0%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 76.8%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 17.54%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Result
AA-LCRSource 5.7%65.3%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads
CritPtSource 0.0%3.1%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 7.4%35.4%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 42.8%87.9%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads
AA-HLESource 4.7%29.4%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -65.9%-8.1%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 12.5%34.3%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 89.5%64.6%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads
GPQASource 87.6%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 87.1%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Result
AIME 2025Source 96.1%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Result
AA-MMMU-ProSource 48.0%75.4%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads
MMMU-ProSource 78.5%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1279Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Result
AA-IFBenchSource 31.8%70.2%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Can I compare Gemma 3 27B and Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) 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 Gemma 3 27B and Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) today?

Gemma 3 27B: $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning): $0.60 input / $3.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 22, 2026

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.