Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Kimi K2.7 Code
Gemini 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.2 to 43.3 on the Noometry Index. Kimi K2.7 Code costs 2.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 3.5 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher in 5 categories and Kimi K2.7 Code in 0 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Gemini 3.5 Flash leads 62.8 to 39.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleQA Verified: 66.2% for Gemini 3.5 Flash and 36.5% for Kimi K2.7 Code.
- Kimi K2.7 Code is cheaper at $0.95 / $4 per million input/output tokens, against $1.50 / $9 for Gemini 3.5 Flash.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
- Kimi K2.7 Code has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | Kimi K2.7 Code | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Moonshot AI | |
| Noometry Index | 54.2 | 43.3 |
| Released | 2026-05-19 | 2026-06-12 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 262K |
| Max output | 66K | 262K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.50 | $0.95 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $9 | $4 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 19 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 49.4 (#49), Kimi K2.7 Code: 42.9 (#95)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSWE | 37.4% | 30.5% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1499 | 1473 |
| SciCode | 53.1% | 47.5% |
| WeirdML | 62.6% | 54.1% |
| ALE-Bench | 911.02 | 886.23 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 79.3% | — |
| FrontierCode | — | 30.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1492 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Too close to call
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 24.7 (#114), Kimi K2.7 Code: 24.0 (#122)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 27.5% | 37.6% |
| GBAEval | 6.7% | 0.9% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,396 | 5,083 |
| GDP.pdf | 14% | — |
Reasoning Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 62.8 (#18), Kimi K2.7 Code: 39.0 (#61)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 76.7% | 57.9% |
| CritPt | 13.1% | 10% |
| Chess Puzzles | 50% | 21% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 58.1% | 48.8% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 154.46 | 149.97 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 72.1% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.6% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 92.5% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 25.4% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 4.8% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1488 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 32% | — |
| DTBench | 94.7% | — |
| LMCA | 47.1% | — |
| ForecastBench | 59 | — |
Math Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 60.7 (#36), Kimi K2.7 Code: 52.9 (#48)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 62.8% | 54% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | 12.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 95.6% | 95.6% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 76.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 31% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1504 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 39% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 14.6% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 66.3 (#11), Kimi K2.7 Code: 53.5 (#57)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 92.8% | 87.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 66.2% | 36.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1495 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.7 (#15), Kimi K2.7 Code: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1310 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 33.6% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1463 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 57.0 (#13), Kimi K2.7 Code: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1476 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1526 | — |
| LMArena French | 1490 | — |
| LMArena German | 1492 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1486 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1451 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1493 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1480 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 77.0 (#30), Kimi K2.7 Code: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1467 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.4 (#38), Kimi K2.7 Code: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 65.5 (#47), Kimi K2.7 Code: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1482 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1470 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1087 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1481 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash better than Kimi K2.7 Code?
Gemini 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.2 to 43.3 on the Noometry Index. Kimi K2.7 Code costs 2.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 3.5 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Kimi K2.7 Code?
Kimi K2.7 Code is cheaper. It lists at $0.95 per million input tokens and $4 per million output tokens; Gemini 3.5 Flash lists at $1.50 and $9.
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash or Kimi K2.7 Code better for coding?
Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.4 versus 42.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 3.5 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 3.5 Flash and Kimi K2.7 Code share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 3.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and Kimi K2.7 Code has 19.