ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Kimi K2.6

Gemini 3.5 Flash comes out ahead, 69 to 65 on our weighted score, though Kimi K2.6 is 2× cheaper per token.

  1. Our pick

    Google

    Gemini 3.5 Flash

    Released May 19, 2026

    69/100
    • ECI154.5
    • Price$1.50 / $9.00
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove Gemini 3.5 Flash

  2. Moonshot AI

    Kimi K2.6

    Released Apr 21, 2026

    65/100
    • ECI151.1
    • Price$0.95 / $4.00
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Kimi K2.6

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Gemini 3.5 Flash is our pick

Gemini 3.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 69/100 against Kimi K2.6 (65). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. Kimi K2.6 wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityGemini 3.5 FlashCapabilities Index (ECI): Gemini 3.5 Flash 154.5 · Kimi K2.6 151.1
  • Lowest priceKimi K2.6Kimi K2.6 $1.71 · Gemini 3.5 Flash $3.38 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGemini 3.5 FlashGemini 3.5 Flash 1,048,576 · Kimi K2.6 262,144 tokens
  • Widest inputsGemini 3.5 FlashGemini 3.5 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · Kimi K2.6: Text, Images, Video
  • Self-hostingKimi K2.6Publishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGemini 3.5 FlashKimi K2.6
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%8479
Price25%2539
Inputs & features15%10080
Context window10%6137
Overall100%69/10065/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Kimi K2.6 specifications side by side
SpecificationGemini 3.5 FlashGoogleKimi K2.6Moonshot AI
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)154.5 (best)151.1
ECI rank#33 of 148 (best)#45 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions92.8% (best)90.8%
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics62.8% (best)57.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics95.6%96.1% (best)
SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues79.3% (best)76.7%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions66.2% (best)34.9%
Price per million tokens
Input$1.50$0.95 (best)
Output$9.00$4.00 (best)
Cached input$0.15 (best)$0.16
Blended (3:1)$3.38$1.71 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Google APIOfficial Moonshot AI API
Limits
Context window1,048,576 tokens (best)262,144 tokens
Max output65,536 tokens262,144 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsYesNo
AudioYesNo
VideoYesYes
ReasoningYesminimal · low · medium · highYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpen
API model IDgemini-3.5-flashkimi-k2.6
API providers3246 (best)
ReleasedMay 19, 2026Apr 21, 2026
Knowledge cutoffJan 2025Jan 2025
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Gemini 3.5 Flash$33.00
  • Kimi K2.6$17.50
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

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

Gemini 3.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 69/100 against Kimi K2.6 (65). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. Kimi K2.6 wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

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

Kimi K2.6 is cheaper at $0.95 input / $4.00 output per million tokens (official Moonshot AI API price). Gemini 3.5 Flash costs $1.50 input / $9.00 output per million tokens (official Google API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $1.71 per million tokens for Kimi K2.6 versus $3.38 for Gemini 3.5 Flash (2× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Gemini 3.5 Flash 154.5 (#33 of 148) and Kimi K2.6 151.1 (#45 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (152.5–156.6 vs 149.1–152.8), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Gemini 3.5 Flash 92.8%, Kimi K2.6 90.8%; FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 — Gemini 3.5 Flash 62.8%, Kimi K2.6 57.2%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Kimi K2.6 96.1%, Gemini 3.5 Flash 95.6%; SWE-bench Verified — Gemini 3.5 Flash 79.3%, Kimi K2.6 76.7%; SimpleQA Verified — Gemini 3.5 Flash 66.2%, Kimi K2.6 34.9%.

Which is better for coding?

Gemini 3.5 Flash resolves more real GitHub issues on SWE-bench Verified: Gemini 3.5 Flash 79.3% and Kimi K2.6 76.7%. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 262,144 for Kimi K2.6. Maximum output per response: Gemini 3.5 Flash up to 65,536, Kimi K2.6 up to 262,144 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Gemini 3.5 Flash accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; Kimi K2.6 accepts text, images and video. Gemini 3.5 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Kimi K2.6 publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini 3.5 Flash is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Gemini 3.5 Flash is the newest, released May 19, 2026. Kimi K2.6 came out Apr 21, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 3.5 Flash Jan 2025, Kimi K2.6 Jan 2025.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons