Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Kimi K3
Gemini 3.1 Pro wins on Overall, Coding, Multimodal. Every numeric field is compared below, with a worked monthly-cost example and a pick rule for each use case.
Verdict at a glance
Choose Gemini 3.1 Pro if you…
- Native audio and video
- Strong scientific computing
- Largest 2M context
- Search integration
- Best for: Multimodal, Scientific reasoning, Audio & video
Choose Kimi K3 if you…
- Best-in-class long text
- Open-source and self-hostable
- Strong codebase understanding
- Fair price
- Best for: Long-document reading, Codebase analysis, Chinese
Head-to-head aggregate scores
Scores are 0–100, aggregated from public benchmark information and independently weighted across three leaderboards. Rank is out of 22 tracked models.
Aggregated from public sources and independently weighted; methodology on the Terms page. Scores within 3 points are treated as statistically tied.
Specs & pricing — every field side by side
List API prices in USD per 1M tokens. The highlighted cell is the stronger value/capability on that row.
| Dimension | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Kimi K3 | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vendor | Google (US) | Moonshot AI (CN) | Different vendors |
| Released | 2026.05 | 2026.06 | Kimi K3 is newer |
| Overall (rank) | 83 · #3 | 77 · #8 | Gemini 3.1 Pro +6 |
| Coding | 74 · #9 | 71 · #11 | Gemini 3.1 Pro +3 |
| Multimodal | 92 · #2 | 81 · #10 | Gemini 3.1 Pro +11 |
| Context window | 2M | 256K | Gemini 3.1 Pro larger |
| Max output | 128K | 64K | Kimi K3 longer |
| Effective-context | 92 | 99 | Kimi K3 more reliable |
| Input $/1M | $2 | $3 | Gemini 3.1 Pro cheaper |
| Output $/1M | $12 | $15 | Gemini 3.1 Pro cheaper |
| Cache discount | none | custom | Kimi K3 deeper |
| Speed | ~60 tok/s | ~45 tok/s | Gemini 3.1 Pro faster |
| TTFT | 0.7s | 0.7s | Tie |
| Function calling | 78 | 80 | Kimi K3 ahead |
| Refusal rate | ~12% | ~6% | Kimi K3 less restrictive |
| English | 90 | 75 | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
| Chinese | 75 | 92 | Kimi K3 |
| Modalities | text, image, audio, video | text, image | different coverage |
| Open weights | No | Yes | Kimi K3 is open |
| Fine-tuning | Yes | No | |
| Free tier | Gemini App free with limited quota; API free tier available | Kimi App free; free quota on the open platform | |
| SOC2 / no-train | yes / yes | no / yes | |
| Private deployment | No | Yes | Kimi K3 |
Fields drawn from vendor public documentation and the Modelspectra 22-model dataset; speed varies with network, concurrency and prompt length. Verify current pricing before purchase.
Dimension-by-dimension analysis
Reasoning & overall intelligence
Gemini 3.1 Pro leads the overall aggregate by 6 points (83 vs 77). That is a meaningful, not marginal, edge on hard, multi-step reasoning, while Kimi K3 remains a strong generalist that is not out of its depth on routine work.
Agentic coding
This is a modest gap: Gemini 3.1 Pro scores 74 against 71. On multi-file edits, SWE-style tickets and long-horizon agent loops Gemini 3.1 Pro needs fewer correction turns; Kimi K3 is still competent for scripts and assisted completion but trails as task complexity rises.
Multimodal
Gemini 3.1 Pro leads multimodal 92 vs 81. A concrete modality difference: Gemini 3.1 Pro additionally handles audio, video.
Speed & latency
Gemini 3.1 Pro is faster in interactive use: ~60 tok/s with 0.7s TTFT versus ~45 tok/s with 0.7s TTFT (about 1.3× the throughput). For conversational UIs where perceived responsiveness drives retention, that edge is a real product factor even when raw reasoning is lower.
Context: window vs usable recall
Nominal windows are 2M for Gemini 3.1 Pro and 256K for Kimi K3. Crucially, the larger nominal window does not win on usable recall: Gemini 3.1 Pro advertises 2M but Kimi K3 scores higher on effective-context (99 vs 92), i.e. it actually retains more of what it was given.
Price & total cost
Gemini 3.1 Pro is the cheaper API at $2/$12 versus Kimi K3 at $3/$15 per 1M input/output tokens — list input is about 1.5× lower.
Chinese vs English
English: Gemini 3.1 Pro 90 vs Kimi K3 75. Chinese: 75 vs 92. For Chinese-language production, Kimi K3 is the stronger pick. Note that non-Chinese models generally require overseas network access for their APIs.
Tool use & ecosystem
Function-calling score: Gemini 3.1 Pro 78 vs Kimi K3 80, so Kimi K3 has the edge on structured tool use. Fine-tuning is available from Gemini 3.1 Pro. Factor in existing SDK/plugin familiarity — switching cost often outweighs a few-point tool-use gap.
Cost worked example — same workload, real token math
Assume a production workload of 100M input + 30M output tokens per month, with 90% of input tokens served from cache. Figures use public list prices.
| Scenario · per month | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Kimi K3 | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| List priceno cache applied | $560100M in × $2 + 30M out × $12 | $750100M in × $3 + 30M out × $15 | 1.34×gap |
| With caching90% of inputs cache-hit | $560no published cache discount | $750no published cache discount | 1.34×gap |
Illustrative model; your input/output mix and cache-hit ratio change the result. Prices are list rates before any enterprise agreement.