Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Kimi K2.5
At a Glance
| Compare |  Gemma 4 26B A4BGoogle DeepMind |  Kimi K2.5Moonshot AI |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.070Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 21, 2026 | $0.45Deepinfra ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.30Openrouter ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 | $2.25Deepinfra ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 262K | 262K |
| Model facts checked | Sep 3, 2026View model evidence → | Aug 28, 2026View model evidence → |
Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B-A4B | Kimi-K2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,434.4799% of row best · rating · gemma-4-26b-a4b; 95% CI [1426.87673667, 1442.06986887]; votes 5804; rank 80 | 1,445.64100% of row best · rating · kimi-k2.5-thinking; 95% CI [1442.30343195, 1448.97544647]; votes 70513; rank 53 |
| LMArena Vision Arenavision-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · statistical tie | 1,258.9099% of row best · rating · gemma-4-26b-a4b; 95% CI [1252.23205561, 1265.56747875]; votes 22658; rank 47 | 1,266.99100% of row best · rating · kimi-k2.5-thinking; 95% CI [1261.13170482, 1272.84453452]; votes 26646; rank 39 |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above · 1 tie | 0 benchmark winsNo overall winner | 1 benchmark winNo overall winner |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Gemma 4 26B-A4B | Kimi-K2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Google DeepMind | Moonshot AI |
| Family | Gemma 4 | Kimi K2 5 |
| Model | Gemma 4 26B-A4B | Kimi-K2.5 |
| Version | Gemma 4 26B-A4B | Kimi-K2.5 |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-03-11 | 2026-01-27 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 262K | 262K |
| Total parameters | 26B | 1T |
| Active parameters | 4B | 32B |
| License | apache-2.0 | other |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Provider access | Deepinfra (Standard), Google Gemini (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) | Deepinfra (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, tools |
Gemma 4 26B A4B Capabilities
Kimi K2.5 Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All image comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Gemma 4 26B-A4BGoogle DeepMind | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Gemma 4 26B-A4BGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | Gemma 4 26B-A4BGoogle DeepMind | developer peerstext |
 DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | vs | Gemma 4 26B-A4BGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Gemma 4 26B-A4BGoogle DeepMind | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Gemma 4 26B-A4BGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Gemma 4 26B-A4BGoogle DeepMind | vs | Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Gemma 4 26B-A4BGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Gemma 4 26B-A4BGoogle DeepMind | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemma 4 26B-A4BGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | Gemma 4 26B-A4BGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Gemma 4 26B-A4BGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Kimi K2.5 FAQs
Is Gemma 4 26B A4B or Kimi K2.5 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Gemma 4 26B A4B and Kimi K2.5, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Kimi K2.5?+
Gemma 4 26B A4B is $0.070 and Kimi K2.5 is $0.45 per million tokens, so Gemma 4 26B A4B is cheaper on this metric. Gemma 4 26B A4B is $0.30 and Kimi K2.5 is $2.25 per million tokens, so Gemma 4 26B A4B is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Kimi K2.5?+
Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. Gemma 4 26B A4B is 262K and Kimi K2.5 is 262K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Kimi K2.5?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: An overall winner requires at least two decisive benchmarks from at least two original publishers.
Can Gemma 4 26B A4B or Kimi K2.5 be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. Gemma 4 26B A4B is open weight; Kimi K2.5 is open weight.
Can Gemma 4 26B A4B and Kimi K2.5 understand images?+
Gemma 4 26B A4B is documented with image input; Kimi K2.5 is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Kimi K2.5?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Gemma 4 26B A4B is — and Kimi K2.5 is —.
Do Gemma 4 26B A4B and Kimi K2.5 support reasoning and tool use?+
Gemma 4 26B A4B: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Kimi K2.5: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Kimi K2.5?+
Gemma 4 26B A4B has 4 sourced provider routes; Kimi K2.5 has 3, so Gemma 4 26B A4B has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Kimi K2.5?+
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.