Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Kimi K2.6

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 37 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

64.75/100
Margin
8.0pts
← winning
Kimi K2.6
Moonshot AI
56.79/100
3 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.5 Flash #33 (Estimated); 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 and Kimi K2.6 share 37 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 9 results are unique to Gemini 3.5 Flash; 14 to Kimi K2.6.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
37
Gemini 3.5 Flash only
9
Kimi K2.6 only
14
Comparable categories
5 / 8

Pick Gemini 3.5 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Kimi K2.6 only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 37 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 5 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 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 64.75 to 56.79. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Gemini 3.5 Flash's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 47.2 against 42.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 76.2% to 66.7%. Kimi K2.6 does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Gemini 3.5 Flash is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.50 input / $9.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.95 input / $4.00 output per 1M tokens for Kimi K2.6. That is roughly 2.3x on output cost alone. Gemini 3.5 Flash 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 scores and score margins for Gemini 3.5 Flash and Kimi K2.6
CategoryGemini 3.5 FlashΔKimi K2.6
MathGemini 3.5 Flash32.9Margin→ 34.2Kimi K2.667.1
CodingGemini 3.5 Flash53.9Margin→ 10.5Kimi K2.664.4
KnowledgeGemini 3.5 Flash47.2Margin← 5.0Kimi K2.642.2
MultimodalGemini 3.5 Flash83.8Margin← 4.0Kimi K2.679.8
AgenticGemini 3.5 Flash77.2Margin← 3.7Kimi K2.673.5
ReasoningGemini 3.5 Flash74.7MarginNo overlapKimi K2.6Not measured
Inst. FollowingGemini 3.5 Flash76.3MarginNo overlapKimi K2.6Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Gemini 3.5 FlashB · Kimi K2.6

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 76.2%B 66.7%
    Winner: Gemini 3.5 FlashΔ 9.5
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Gemini 3.5 Flash scored 76.2%; Kimi K2.6 scored 66.7%. Gemini 3.5 Flash wins this benchmark.

  2. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 40.2%B 34.7%
    Winner: Gemini 3.5 FlashΔ 5.5
    HLE: Gemini 3.5 Flash scored 40.2%; Kimi K2.6 scored 34.7%. Gemini 3.5 Flash wins this benchmark.

  3. OSWorld-Verified

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 78.4%B 73.1%
    Winner: Gemini 3.5 FlashΔ 5.3
    OSWorld-Verified: Gemini 3.5 Flash scored 78.4%; Kimi K2.6 scored 73.1%. Gemini 3.5 Flash wins this benchmark.

  4. MMMU-Pro

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 83.6%B 79.4%
    Winner: Gemini 3.5 FlashΔ 4.2
    MMMU-Pro: Gemini 3.5 Flash scored 83.6%; Kimi K2.6 scored 79.4%. Gemini 3.5 Flash wins this benchmark.

  5. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 84.2%B 80.4%
    Winner: Gemini 3.5 FlashΔ 3.8
    CharXiv: Gemini 3.5 Flash scored 84.2%; Kimi K2.6 scored 80.4%. Gemini 3.5 Flash wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricGemini 3.5 FlashKimi K2.6Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGemini 3.5 Flash$1.5 input / $9 outputKimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 outputKimi K2.6 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondGemini 3.5 Flash284.2 tok/sKimi K2.6Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGemini 3.5 Flash18.55 sKimi K2.6Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGemini 3.5 Flash1MKimi K2.6256KGemini 3.5 Flash lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticGemini 3.5 Flash wins
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashKimi K2.6Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 76.2%66.7%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
MCP AtlasSource 83.6%55.9%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
ToolathlonSource 56.5%50%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 78.4%73.1%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Finance Agent v2Source 57.9%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 13491189Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 95.3%95.9%Kimi K2.6 leads
GDPval-AASource 42.4%34.5%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 37.5%30.3%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
APEX-Agents-AASource 47.1%28.5%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gert LabsSource 61.85%56.82%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
ResearchClawBenchSource 18.0%18.0%Tie
AA AutomationBenchSource 42.6%—Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 50.1%—Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource 40.9%43.9%Kimi K2.6 leads
BrowseCompSource —83.2%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —62.3%Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource —92.5%Not comparable
WideResearchSource —80.8%Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —4.6%Not comparable
CodingKimi K2.6 wins
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashKimi K2.6Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 76.2%66.7%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
SWE-bench ProSource 55.1%58.6%Kimi K2.6 leads
SciCodeSource 53.1%52.2%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Vibe Code BenchSource 48.68%37.89%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
cursorBench31Source 49.8%47.6%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
cursorBench32Source 48.8%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 70.1%61.8%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
AA-SciCodeSource 53.1%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
Reasoning
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashKimi K2.6Result
MRCRv2Source 77.3%—Not comparable
MRCR 1MSource 26.6%—Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source 72.1%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 69.3%69.7%Kimi K2.6 leads
CritPtSource 13.1%8.0%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
KnowledgeGemini 3.5 Flash wins
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashKimi K2.6Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 50.2%44.2%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
GPQASource 92.2%90.5%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
GPQA-DSource 92.7%90.5%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
HLESource 40.2%34.7%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 51.9%32.8%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 60.7%39.3%Kimi K2.6 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.2%91.1%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
AA-HLESource 41.0%35.9%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 22.7%6.4%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
MathKimi K2.6 wins
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashKimi K2.6Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 38.966%38.966%Tie
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 14.583%14.580%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
AIME26Source —96.4%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —92.7%Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource —86.0%Not comparable
MultimodalGemini 3.5 Flash wins
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashKimi K2.6Result
CharXivSource 84.2%80.4%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
MMMU-ProSource 83.6%79.4%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Blueprint-Bench 2Source 33.6%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 84.3%79.4%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12851306Kimi K2.6 leads
MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource —80.1%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —87.4%Not comparable
V*Source —96.9%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashKimi K2.6Result
IFBenchSource 76.3%—Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 76.3%76.0%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Frequently Asked Questions (6)

Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Kimi K2.6?

Gemini 3.5 Flash is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 64.75 to 56.79. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 76.2% and 66.7%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Kimi K2.6?

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 47.2 versus 42.2. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Kimi K2.6?

Kimi K2.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 64.4 versus 53.9. Inside this category, Vibe Code Bench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Kimi K2.6?

Kimi K2.6 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 67.1 versus 32.9. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Kimi K2.6?

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 73.5. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Kimi K2.6?

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 83.8 versus 79.8. Inside this category, Design Arena Website 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.

Gemini 3.5 Flash
API / mo$7,875
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Kimi K2.6
API / mo$3,713
Self-host / mo$18,221
Break-even326M/day
Model the full break-even

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Google Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 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.