Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limited
Gemma 4 31B vs Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Updated October 17, 2026. Rank says Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) 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 (Reasoning) has the higher public point estimate, 56.09 versus 39.89. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 5 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Model B
Moonshot AI
56.09/100
Estimated · Public rank #63
Conditional range 41.7–70.4
- Shared results
- 5
- Gemma 4 31B only
- 5
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) only
- 10
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: Gemma 4 31B and Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning). Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How 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 31B and Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
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.
31.7Gemma 4 31B—Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8
The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.
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.
5 Gemma 4 31B only
5 Shared
10 Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) only
3 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.
GPQAKnowledge
Normalized gap 3.3Gemma 4 31B:84.3%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning):87.6%MMLU-ProKnowledge
Normalized gap 1.9Gemma 4 31B:85.2%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning):87.1%MMMU-ProMultimodal
Normalized gap 1.6Gemma 4 31B:76.9%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning):78.5%
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.
Agentic
Directional only- Gemma 4 31B
- 19.7
- Estimated · #109/128
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- 38.3
- Estimated · #71/128
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Directional only- Gemma 4 31B
- 74.3
- #26/54
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- 69.0
- #33/54
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Gemma 4 31B
- 40.9
- Supported · #114/184
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- 48.8
- Estimated · #85/184
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Not comparable- Gemma 4 31B
- 31.7
- Supported · #89/150
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemma 4 31B
- 66.6
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- 67.1
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemma 4 31B
- Not ranked
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemma 4 31B
- 92.9
- #15/148
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemma 4 31B
- Not ranked
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemma 4 31B | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 19.7Estimated · #109/128 | 38.3Estimated · #71/128 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 4 public rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 74.3#26/54 | 69.0#33/54 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 40.9Supported · #114/184 | 48.8Estimated · #85/184 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 2 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 31.7Supported · #89/150 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 4 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 66.6Unranked · 3 rankable rows | 67.1Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 92.9#15/148 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 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 31B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- $0.0021
- Fits in one request
Gemma 4 31B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Gemma 4 31B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- $0.039
- Fits in one request
Gemma 4 31B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Gemma 4 31B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- $0.162
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Gemma 4 31B 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 31BKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemma 4 31B
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
256K
API model ID
Gemma 4 31B
gemma-4-31b-it
Google Gemma Gemini API guideKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
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 31B
No comparable hosted API rate
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Not published
Documented inputs
Gemma 4 31B
text, image
Google Gemma 4 model documentationKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemma 4 31B
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemma 4 31B
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio, open weights
Google Gemma Gemini API guideKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemma 4 31B
Reasoning
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Reasoning
Weight access
Gemma 4 31B
Open Weight
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Proprietary
License
Gemma 4 31B
Open Weight
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Proprietary
Release date
Gemma 4 31B
2026-04-02
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
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 (Reasoning) has the higher public point estimate, 56.09 versus 39.89. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
- 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 31B or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has the higher public point estimate, 56.09 versus 39.89. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Gemma 4 31B or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemma 4 31B or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 38.3 to 19.7. Gemma 4 31B and Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Gemma 4 31B or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?
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 31B or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?
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 31B
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$298
Break-even—
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
API / mo$2,700
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence20 rows
Agentic
Gert Labs
Shared sourceGemma 4 31B35.26%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)32.58%Gemma 4 31B leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemma 4 31B—Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)50.8%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Gemma 4 31B—Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)60.6%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Gemma 4 31B—Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)63.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
LiveCodeBench v6
Gemma 4 31B80.0%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)85.0%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads this result
SWE-Rebench
Gemma 4 31B41.6%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
React Native Evals
Gemma 4 31B75.2%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Gemma 4 31B—Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)76.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemma 4 31B—Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)50.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Gemma 4 31B—Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)17.54%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Multimodal
Knowledge
GPQA
Gemma 4 31B84.3%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)87.6%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads this result
MMLU-Pro
Gemma 4 31B85.2%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)87.1%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads this result
HLE
Gemma 4 31B26.5%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Gemma 4 31B19.5%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
Math
20 public results · 5 shared
Watch Gemma 4 31B vs Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
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