Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Kimi K2.6

Benchmark Performance

Available Benchmarks

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProKimi-K2.6
LMArena Document Arenadocument-2026-07-30-011508720696 · arena_rating · statistical tie1,445.32100% of row best · rating · gemini-3.1-pro-preview; 95% CI [1439.35538449, 1451.29339146]; votes 45162; rank 231,450.90100% of row best · rating · kimi-k2.6; 95% CI [1443.21872745, 1458.58325377]; votes 11181; rank 21
LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-01-011508720696 · arena_rating · leader1,480.10100% of row best · rating · gemini-3.1-pro-preview; 95% CI [1476.89767236, 1483.30025658]; votes 102763; rank 111,455.0198% of row best · rating · kimi-k2.6; 95% CI [1450.48846324, 1459.52803920]; votes 37573; rank 34
LMArena Vision Arenavision-2026-08-27-011508720696 · arena_rating · leader1,295.39100% of row best · rating · gemini-3.1-pro-preview; 95% CI [1289.75236576, 1301.03738662]; votes 39412; rank 171,280.7199% of row best · rating · kimi-k2.6; 95% CI [1273.64165646, 1287.78511818]; votes 15378; rank 27
LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader81.66100% of row best · percent · gemini-3.1-pro-preview-high · 13,380 output tokens / case74.1891% of row best · percent · kimi-k2.6-thinking · 27,001 output tokens / case
Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above · 1 tie3 benchmark winsOverall lead0 benchmark wins

Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.

FieldAt a Glance
Google DeepMind · previewGemini 3.1 ProVerified Aug 29, 2026
Moonshot AI · activeKimi K2.6Verified Aug 28, 2026

Technical Differences

Side-by-Side Facts

Indexable
FieldGemini 3.1 ProKimi-K2.6
DeveloperGoogle DeepMindMoonshot AI
FamilyGemini 3Kimi K2 6
ModelGemini 3.1 ProKimi-K2.6
VersionGemini 3.1 ProKimi-K2.6
Lifecyclepreviewactive
ReleasedUnknown2026-04-20
Knowledge cutoffUnknownUnknown
Input modalitiesText, Image, Video, Audio, DocumentText, Image
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window1,049K262K
Total parametersUnknown1T
Active parametersUnknown32B
LicenseUnknownother
Open weightsNoYes
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableNoYes
Provider accessGoogle AI (Standard), Google Gemini (Standard)Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoning, toolschat, generation, reasoning, tools

13 comparable fields · 10 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate

Gemini 3.1 Pro Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Input price$2.00
Output price$12.00
Serving providers2
Canonical IDgoogle-deepmind/gemini-3.1-pro-preview

Kimi K2.6 Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Input price$0.75
Output price$3.50
Serving providers5
Canonical IDmoonshotai/Kimi-K2.6

Internal Comparison Graph

Related Comparisons

All text comparisons →
APairBContext
vsfamily variantstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Kimi K2.6 FAQs

Is Gemini 3.1 Pro or Kimi K2.6 better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Gemini 3.1 Pro and Kimi K2.6, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Kimi K2.6?+

Gemini 3.1 Pro is $2.00 and Kimi K2.6 is $0.75 per million tokens, so Kimi K2.6 is cheaper on this metric. Gemini 3.1 Pro is $12.00 and Kimi K2.6 is $3.50 per million tokens, so Kimi K2.6 is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Kimi K2.6?+

Gemini 3.1 Pro has the larger sourced context window. Gemini 3.1 Pro supports 1,049K and Kimi K2.6 supports 262K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Kimi K2.6?+

Gemini 3.1 Pro leads the current overall benchmark count. The result uses 4 protocol-matched benchmarks from 2 publishers; it is not a universal quality score.

Can Gemini 3.1 Pro or Kimi K2.6 be self-hosted?+

Kimi K2.6 is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Gemini 3.1 Pro is not marked open weight; Kimi K2.6 is open weight.

Can Gemini 3.1 Pro and Kimi K2.6 understand images?+

Gemini 3.1 Pro is documented with image input; Kimi K2.6 is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Kimi K2.6?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Gemini 3.1 Pro is 66K and Kimi K2.6 is —.

Do Gemini 3.1 Pro and Kimi K2.6 support reasoning and tool use?+

Gemini 3.1 Pro: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Kimi K2.6: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Kimi K2.6?+

Gemini 3.1 Pro has 2 sourced provider routes; Kimi K2.6 has 5, so Kimi K2.6 has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Kimi K2.6?+

There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.

Send Feedback