Roboflow

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Kimi K3

Compare Gemini 3.7 Flash and Kimi K3 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, and OCR.

Compare Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Kimi K3 live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

Compare image classification labels and confidence scores side-by-side.

Open Classification in the full playground
GoogleGemini 3.7 Flash
Run to compare this model.
MoonshotAIKimi K3
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

MoonshotAI

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Kimi K3 on Vision Evals

Gemini 3.7 Flash scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Gemini 3.7 Flash leads 82.8% to 42.4%.

Overall, Gemini 3.7 Flash averages 84.6% (#2 of 30) against 66.5% (#20 of 30) for Kimi K3.

Gemini 3.7 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0016 vs $0.011 per sample) and faster (10.0s vs 12.7s per sample).

Gemini 3.7 FlashKimi K3

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Kimi K3 Comparison Table

Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026

PropertyGemini 3.7 FlashKimi K3
OrganizationGoogleMoonshot AI
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Jul 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
ParametersUndisclosed2.8T
LicenseProprietaryModified MIT
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.375$3.00
Output $/1M$1.88$15.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
84.6%
66.5%
Avg cost / sample$0.0016$0.011
Avg speed / sample9.97s12.71s
By task
Object Detection
69.4%
$0.0024
51.9%
$0.020
Counting
77.0%
$0.0013
46.0%
$0.0046
Identification
96.9%
$0.0007
81.3%
$0.0041
OCR
86.9%
$0.0014
93.0%
$0.0094
Data Extraction
94.8%
$0.0007
84.5%
$0.0046
Reasoning (low)
82.8%
$0.0011
42.4%
$0.0044
Reasoning (high)
82.1%
$0.0026
74.2%
$0.037

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Kimi K3: Overview

Gemini 3.7 Flash

Gemini 3.7 Flash is a proprietary multimodal model from Google, positioned in the Flash branch of the Gemini 3 series that trades some of the capacity of the larger Pro models for lower latency and lower cost per token. It accepts interleaved text and image input alongside other modalities handled by the Gemini family and returns text, and it continues the series pattern of exposing a configurable thinking budget so that reasoning effort can be scaled up for harder problems or reduced for high throughput extraction, routing and classification work. The model is announced roughly three weeks after Gemini 3.6 Flash, part of an unusually fast iteration cadence within the Flash line.

Google reports gains concentrated in agentic coding and front end generation, citing a WebDev Arena Elo of 1588 for this release compared with 1538 for the preceding Flash model, and describes it as producing more functional layouts and more feature complete applications in fewer prompts. Weights are not published and the architecture, parameter count and training corpus are undisclosed, consistent with prior Gemini releases. Visual capability follows the Flash lineage, covering image and document understanding, chart and diagram interpretation, text recognition in images, and general visual question answering.

Kimi K3

Kimi K3 is a sparse Mixture-of-Experts large language model developed by Moonshot AI, with 2.8 trillion total parameters and a 1-million-token context window. The model activates 16 out of 896 experts per token using the Stable LatentMoE framework, and is built on two architectural innovations: Kimi Delta Attention (KDA), a hybrid linear attention mechanism that enables up to 6.3x faster decoding in long-context settings, and Attention Residuals (AttnRes), which selectively retrieves representations across model depth and delivers roughly 25% higher training efficiency. Together with refined training and data recipes, these structural advances yield approximately 2.5x better overall scaling efficiency compared to its predecessor Kimi K2. The model applies quantization-aware training from the supervised fine-tuning stage onward, using MXFP4 weights with MXFP8 activations for hardware compatibility. Thinking mode is always enabled at launch, with reasoning effort configurable via the reasoning_effort field.

Kimi K3 supports native visual understanding alongside text, accepting image inputs for tasks that combine software engineering and visual reasoning. It targets long-horizon coding, knowledge work, and agentic workflows, and ships in two variants: K3 Max for general chat and agent tasks, and K3 Swarm Max for large-scale parallel processing across many coordinated sub-agents. The model is compatible with the OpenAI SDK via an OpenAI-compatible API. Full model weights are scheduled for release by July 27, 2026 under a Modified MIT license, following the open-weight pattern established by the Kimi K2 model family. A technical report with full architecture, training, and evaluation details is expected to accompany the weights release.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 3.7 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 84.6% (#2 of 30) against 66.5% (#20 of 30) for Kimi K3. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Gemini 3.7 Flash leads with 82.8% against 42.4%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Gemini 3.7 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0016 per sample against $0.011. Gemini 3.7 Flash is priced at $0.38 per 1M input tokens and $1.88 per 1M output; Kimi K3 is priced at $3.00 per 1M input tokens and $15.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Gemini 3.7 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 10.0s per inference against 12.7s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.