Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Kimi K2.5
Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash and Kimi K2.5 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, Image Captioning, and OCR.
Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Kimi K2.5 live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Kimi K2.5: Overview
Gemini 3.5 Flash is a multimodal language model developed by Google DeepMind and released at Google I/O 2026. It is built on the Gemini 3 Flash reasoning foundation and introduces configurable thinking levels (minimal, low, medium, and high) that allow developers to tune the depth of internal reasoning before a response is generated. The model accepts text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs and produces text output, with a 1 million token context window and up to 65,000 output tokens per request. It is natively multimodal, processing visual inputs alongside text to support tasks such as image captioning, classification, optical character recognition, object detection, and visual grounding, where the model references specific regions within an image or video frame.
Its vision capabilities extend to interpreting UI screenshots, diagrams, charts, and real-world scenes, as well as understanding video and live frame sequences for activity and scene recognition. The model supports combined tool use, including Google Search, URL context, code execution, and custom functions, within a single request, and it uses reasoning context from previous turns when thought signatures are present in the conversation history, enabling persistent multi-turn reasoning chains. Gemini 3.5 Flash carries a knowledge cutoff of January 2026 and is available via the Gemini API, Google AI Studio, Google Antigravity, and the Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform.
Kimi K2.5 is a frontier-scale multimodal AI model developed by Moonshot AI and released on January 27, 2026. As a significant advancement within the Kimi K2 family, it utilizes a sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture with 1 trillion total parameters (32 billion active per inference) and a massive 256K-token context window. The model features native multimodal integration via a 400M-parameter MoonViT encoder, allowing it to process text, images, and video frames simultaneously. Built for both speed and depth, it offers "Instant" and "Thinking" modes, the latter of which excels at expert-level reasoning, scoring 50.2% on the Humanity’s Last Exam (HLE) benchmark when equipped with tools.
The model is released under a Modified MIT License, which remains open-weight but requires attribution for high-revenue commercial entities. It introduces an "Agent Swarm" paradigm capable of coordinating up to 100 specialized sub-agents for parallel workflows, significantly reducing latency in complex research tasks. For vision tasks, Kimi K2.5 demonstrates strong autonomous visual debugging capabilities, where it can inspect its own generated UI outputs against visual specifications to iteratively refine frontend code. This makes it a powerful choice for developers testing automated UI reconstruction, high-fidelity OCR document processing, and multi-step agentic research grounded in complex visual data.
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Kimi K2.5 Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Kimi K2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Moonshot AI | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | May 2026 | Jan 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 256K |
| Parameters | 1T | |
| License | Proprietary | Modified MIT |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.50 | $0.375 |
| Output $/1M | $9.00 | $2.02 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Model Features | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 79.1% | 35.82% |
| Avg Response Time | 6.71s | 14.81s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | 1.6K |
| Median output tokens | 294 | 766 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0043 | $0.0021 |
| Defect Detection | 80%(12/15) | 46.7%(7/15) |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | 55.6%(5/9) |
| Object Counting | 60%(6/10) | 10%(1/10) |
| Object Understanding | 92.9%(13/14) | 42.9%(6/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 78.9%(15/19) | 26.3%(5/19) |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology