Skip to main content
TC
TokenCost

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Kimi K2.5

Complete pricing and performance comparison between Google's Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and Moonshot's Kimi K2.5.

Quick Verdict

Cheaper
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
2.4x cheaper input, 2.0x cheaper output
Larger Context
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
1.0M vs 128K
Higher Quality
Kimi K2.5
Score: 47 vs 34
Faster
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
230 vs 34 tok/s

Pricing Comparison

SpecGemini 3.1 Flash-LiteKimi K2.5Difference
ProviderGoogleMoonshot
Input / 1M tokens$0.25$0.6Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is 58% more expensive
Output / 1M tokens$1.5$3Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is 50% more expensive
Context Window1.0M128K8x difference
Max Output66K33K

Performance Benchmarks

MetricGemini 3.1 Flash-LiteKimi K2.5Winner
Quality Index3447Kimi K2.5
Output Speed230 tok/s34 tok/sGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Time to First Token5.17s1.35sKimi K2.5
Value (Quality/$)134.078.0Higher = better value

Benchmark data from Artificial Analysis. Quality Index is a composite score across reasoning, coding, and knowledge tasks.

Cost at Scale

Estimated cost at different usage levels (3:1 input-to-output token ratio, typical for chat).

UsageGemini 3.1 Flash-LiteKimi K2.5Savings
Single request
1K in / 300 out
$0.0007$0.0015Same
10 requests
10K in / 3K out
$0.0070$0.015Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite saves $0.0080
100 requests
100K in / 30K out
$0.070$0.150Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite saves $0.080
1,000 requests
1M in / 300K out
$0.700$1.50Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite saves $0.800
10,000 requests
10M in / 3M out
$7.00$15.00Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite saves $8.00
1M requests/mo
1B in / 300M out
$700.00$1500.00Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite saves $800.00

Pros & Cons

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite Strengths

  • +Cheaper input tokens
  • +Cheaper output tokens
  • +Larger context window (1.0M vs 128K)
  • +Higher max output tokens
  • +Faster output (230 vs 34 tok/s)

Kimi K2.5 Strengths

  • +Higher quality score (47 vs 34)
  • +Lower latency (faster first token)

When to Use Each Model

Choose Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite for

  • Budget-conscious projects where cost is the primary factor
  • Long documents, large codebases, or multi-turn conversations
  • Generating long-form content or detailed code
  • Real-time applications, chat, or autocomplete

Choose Kimi K2.5 for

  • Tasks requiring maximum accuracy and reasoning

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or Kimi K2.5?
For input tokens, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is 2.4x cheaper at $0.25/1M tokens. For output tokens, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is 2.0x cheaper at $1.5/1M tokens. At typical usage (1M input + 300K output), Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite costs $0.700 vs Kimi K2.5 at $1.50.
What's the context window difference?
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite supports 1.0M context (1,048,576 tokens), while Kimi K2.5 supports 128K (128,000 tokens). Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite can handle 8x more context in a single request.
Which model has better benchmarks?
Quality Index: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite scores 34 vs Kimi K2.5 at 47. Speed: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite generates 230 tok/s vs Kimi K2.5 at 34 tok/s. Time to first token: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite at 5.17s vs Kimi K2.5 at 1.35s.
When should I choose Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite over Kimi K2.5?
Choose Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite when you need: Cheaper input tokens, Cheaper output tokens, Larger context window (1.0M vs 128K), Higher max output tokens, Faster output (230 vs 34 tok/s). Choose Kimi K2.5 when you need: Higher quality score (47 vs 34), Lower latency (faster first token).
How much would 10,000 API requests cost?
At 1K input + 300 output tokens per request (typical chat): Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite = $7.00, Kimi K2.5 = $15.00. At 10K input + 1K output per request (longer conversations): Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite = $40.00, Kimi K2.5 = $90.00.

Related Comparisons