gemini-3.6-flash-high
Checking current pricing…
Chat comparison
gemini-3.6-flash-highvskimi-k3
Compare the things that matter before you build: current price, capabilities, and latest aggregated LLM7 statistics.
Current pricing
See the cost difference clearly
kimi-k3
Checking current pricing…
What's different
Only capabilities that differ between these models are listed. Green highlights the broader supported option or larger context window.
Input formats
gemini-3.6-flash-high
text, json
kimi-k3
text, image
Vision
gemini-3.6-flash-high
Not supported
kimi-k3Better fit
Supported
JSON mode
gemini-3.6-flash-highBetter fit
Supported
kimi-k3
Not supported
Latest LLM7 statistics
Recent aggregated percentages and response-time metrics from LLM7, not a global model benchmark or traffic disclosure.
Recent stability
gemini-3.6-flash-high
99.86%
kimi-k3
99.39%
Average response time
gemini-3.6-flash-high
8,324.47 ms
kimi-k3
3,222.65 ms
P95 API latency
gemini-3.6-flash-high
30,000 ms
kimi-k3
10,000 ms
Side-by-side trends
Shared charts make the observed differences easier to read. Metrics without enough history stay hidden.
Request success rate
Both models on the same scale
gemini-3.6-flash-high: 100%kimi-k3: 100%
Average API latency
Both models on the same scale
gemini-3.6-flash-high: 8,350 mskimi-k3: 7,514 ms
P95 API latency
Both models on the same scale
gemini-3.6-flash-high: 30,000 mskimi-k3: 10,000 ms
Estimate your workload
Published rates are loaded from the pricing API; per-request quotes are billed from actual provider usage.
Checking current pricing…
Checking current pricing…
Quick take
- kimi-k3 supports image input while the other model does not.
- The recent stability rates are too close to distinguish meaningfully.
- kimi-k3 recorded a lower observed p95 API latency on LLM7 during this period.