Directory · Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Kimi K2.7 Code
Side-by-side API economics and benchmarks. Per-1M input and output rates, context window, and verified metrics.
Tale of the tape
Head-to-head specs pulled from each model profile.
| Metric | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| Input cost / 1M | $0.30 | $0.95 |
| Output cost / 1M | $2.50 | $4.00 |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 262,144 tokens |
| MMLU score | — | — |
Cost verdict
Enter monthly input and output volumes to see total cost savings.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
- Input: 1M × $0.30 = $0.30
- Output: 1M × $2.50 = $2.50
- Total
- $2.80
Kimi K2.7 Code
- Input: 1M × $0.95 = $0.95
- Output: 1M × $4.00 = $4.00
- Total
- $4.95
Total cost savings
$2.15
Gemini 2.5 Flash saves $2.15 per month vs the other model at this volume.
Model routing savings
Uses this page's verified rates. Kimi K2.7 Code is the premium route (higher combined per-1M cost); Gemini 2.5 Flash handles routine traffic.
All premium
Kimi K2.7 Code
$247.50
100% of input and output on the premium route
Routed stack
80% → Gemini 2.5 Flash
20% → Kimi K2.7 Code
$161.50
- Routine slice
- $112.00
- Premium slice
- $49.50
Monthly savings
$86.00
34.7% lower
Rates pulled from this page's model database entries (kimi-k2-7-code, gemini-2-5-flash) — same per-1M input/output figures as Tale of the tape. Production routing needs quality gates and monitoring.
Related comparisons
More head-to-head model matchups.