MoonshotAI's native multimodal model with state-of-the-art visual coding.
Google's high-speed thinking model for agentic workflows, chat, and coding.
No shared agent demos for these models yet.
No captured outputs for these models yet.
Based on the Capability Index, Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher (86.2 vs 80.3). However, "better" depends on your use case — pricing, speed, context window, and specific capability needs all matter.
Kimi K2.5 has a lower blended cost. Kimi K2.5: $0.57 input / $2.85 output. Gemini 3.5 Flash: $1.50 input / $9.00 output.
Gemini 3.5 Flash has a larger context window: Kimi K2.5 supports 262K tokens vs Gemini 3.5 Flash at 1M tokens.
Yes, both Kimi K2.5 and Gemini 3.5 Flash support vision/image input.
Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher on SWE-bench Verified: Kimi K2.5 resolves 74% vs Gemini 3.5 Flash at 79%.
Key differences: Gemini 3.5 Flash has a notably higher capability index (5.9 point gap); Kimi K2.5 is significantly cheaper. Compare full specs on this page.
If cost is your priority, choose the cheaper option. If you need the highest intelligence for complex tasks, pick the higher-scoring model. For long documents or codebases, choose the larger context window. You can try both Kimi K2.5 and Gemini 3.5 Flash for free on idapt.app to see which performs better for your specific needs.