Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Kimi K2.5 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Kimi K2.5
Updated October 17, 2026. Rank says Kimi K2.5 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Share or export
Decision reading
Kimi K2.5 has the higher public score estimate, 53.05 versus 45.65, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 5 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 5
- Gemma 4 26B A4B only
- 2
- Kimi K2.5 only
- 63
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Supported: Gemma 4 26B A4B and Kimi K2.5How the comparison works
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.
Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Gemma 4 26B A4B is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limitedLong documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documentedChat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-ratesCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: rate-fallbackRepository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
30.9Gemma 4 26B A4B38.5Kimi K2.5
Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8
Kimi K2.5 has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
2 Gemma 4 26B A4B only
5 Shared
63 Kimi K2.5 only
4 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
HLEKnowledge
Normalized gap 12.9Gemma 4 26B A4B:17.2%Kimi K2.5:30.1%GPQAKnowledge
Normalized gap 5.3Gemma 4 26B A4B:82.3%Kimi K2.5:87.6%MMMU-ProMultimodal
Normalized gap 4.7Gemma 4 26B A4B:73.8%Kimi K2.5:78.5%MMLU-ProKnowledge
Normalized gap 4.5Gemma 4 26B A4B:82.6%Kimi K2.5:87.1%
Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Coding
Directional only- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- 30.9
- Supported · #93/150
- Kimi K2.5
- 38.5
- Estimated · #68/150
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 10 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Directional only- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- 66.9
- #39/54
- Kimi K2.5
- 70.4
- #32/54
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- 40.0
- Estimated · #118/184
- Kimi K2.5
- 51.4
- Estimated · #75/184
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 8 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Instruction following
Directional only- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- 88.7
- #34/148
- Kimi K2.5
- 85.8
- #48/148
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- Not ranked
- Kimi K2.5
- 40.7
- Estimated · #66/128
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 16 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- 53.7
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Kimi K2.5
- 72.2
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- Not ranked
- Kimi K2.5
- 87.3
- #8/17
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- Not ranked
- Kimi K2.5
- 83.3
- Unranked · 7 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Kimi K2.5 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 30.9Supported · #93/150 | 38.5Estimated · #68/150 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 10 public rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 66.9#39/54 | 70.4#32/54 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 40.0Estimated · #118/184 | 51.4Estimated · #75/184 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 8 public rows | Directional only |
| Instruction following | 88.7#34/148 | 85.8#48/148 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | Not ranked | 40.7Estimated · #66/128 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 16 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 53.7Unranked · 3 rankable rows | 72.2Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | 87.3#8/17 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 83.3Unranked · 7 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K2.5
- $0.0021
- Fits in one request
Gemma 4 26B A4B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K2.5
- $0.039
- Fits in one request
Gemma 4 26B A4B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Gemma 4 26B A4B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- Kimi K2.5
- $0.162
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Kimi K2.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Gemma 4 26B A4B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGemma 4 26B A4BKimi K2.5
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Kimi K2.5
256K
API model ID
Gemma 4 26B A4B
gemma-4-26b-a4b-it
Google Gemma Gemini API guideKimi K2.5
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemma 4 26B A4B
No comparable hosted API rate
Kimi K2.5
Not published
Documented inputs
Gemma 4 26B A4B
text, image
Google Gemma 4 model documentationKimi K2.5
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Kimi K2.5
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio, open weights
Google Gemma Gemini API guideKimi K2.5
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Reasoning
Kimi K2.5
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Open Weight
Kimi K2.5
Open Weight
License
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Open Weight
Kimi K2.5
Open Weight
Release date
Gemma 4 26B A4B
2026-04-02
Kimi K2.5
2026-01-27
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Kimi K2.5 has the higher public score estimate, 53.05 versus 45.65, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 256K.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Kimi K2.5?
Kimi K2.5 has the higher public score estimate, 53.05 versus 45.65, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Kimi K2.5?
Kimi K2.5 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 38.5 to 30.9. Kimi K2.5 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Kimi K2.5?
Gemma 4 26B A4B is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Kimi K2.5?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Kimi K2.5?
Both models list the same context window, 256K.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Gemma 4 26B A4B
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$298
Break-even—
Kimi K2.5
API / mo$2,700
Self-host / mo$7,358
Break-even186M/day
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence70 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.550.8%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.560.6%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.563.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.552.3%SourceNot directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.554.3%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.565.7%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.577.1%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.514.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.527.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.529.5%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP-Tasks
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.559.1%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.572.7%SourceNot directly comparable
BFCL v4
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.568.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.545.88%SourceNot directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.514.0%SourceNot directly comparable
JobBench
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.58.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
LiveCodeBench v6
Gemma 4 26B A4B77.1%SourceKimi K2.585.0%SourceKimi K2.5 leads this result
SWE-bench Verified
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.576.8%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified*
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.570.8%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.550.7%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.573%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-Rebench
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.558.5%SourceNot directly comparable
React Native Evals
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.577.2%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.532%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.548.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.550.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
Gemma 4 26B A4B73.8%SourceKimi K2.578.5%SourceKimi K2.5 leads this result
MMMU
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.584.3%SourceNot directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.581.0%SourceNot directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.588.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Video-MME
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.587.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.587.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Video-MME (w/o subtitle)
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.583.2%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.584.2%SourceNot directly comparable
We-Math
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.584.7%SourceNot directly comparable
DynaMath
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.584.4%SourceNot directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.571.2%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLongBench-Doc
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.558.5%SourceNot directly comparable
CC-OCR
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.579.7%SourceNot directly comparable
AI2D_TEST
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.590.8%SourceNot directly comparable
CountBench
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.594.1%SourceNot directly comparable
RefCOCO (avg)
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.587.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MMVU
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.580.4%SourceNot directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.586.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.585.0%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.577.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Gemma 4 26B A4B82.3%SourceKimi K2.587.6%SourceKimi K2.5 leads this result
MMLU-Pro
Gemma 4 26B A4B82.6%SourceKimi K2.587.1%SourceKimi K2.5 leads this result
HLE
Gemma 4 26B A4B17.2%SourceKimi K2.530.1%SourceKimi K2.5 leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Gemma 4 26B A4B8.7%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.587.6%SourceNot directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.569.2%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.587.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.594.5%SourceNot directly comparable
C-Eval
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.594%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
MMLU-ProX
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.582.3%SourceNot directly comparable
NOVA-63
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.556.0%SourceNot directly comparable
INCLUDE
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.583.3%SourceNot directly comparable
PolyMath
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.543.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MAXIFE
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.572.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
IFEval
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.593.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
AIME 2025
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.596.1%SourceNot directly comparable
AIME26
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.595.8%SourceNot directly comparable
AIME25 (Arcee)
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.596.3%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.595.4%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.591.1%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.587.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Gemma 4 26B A4B—Kimi K2.581.8%SourceNot directly comparable
70 public results · 5 shared
Watch Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Kimi K2.5
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 5,600+ readers.
Last updated October 17, 2026