What is the difference between Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental and Kimi K2?

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental is developed by Google AI while Kimi K2 is developed by Moonshot AI. in 7 community votes on RIVAL, Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental wins 57% of head-to-head matchups. These results are based on blind head-to-head voting across 27 challenges.

Which is better, Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental or Kimi K2?

Based on 7 community votes on RIVAL, Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental wins 57% of head-to-head matchups against Kimi K2. Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental is strongest in Web Design, Reasoning.

How much does Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental cost compared to Kimi K2?

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental costs $1/M input tokens and Kimi K2 costs $0.57/M input tokens. Kimi K2 is $0.43/M cheaper per input. The more expensive model wins 57% of duels, so the premium may be justified by quality.

How are Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental vs Kimi K2 votes collected on RIVAL?

RIVAL presents both models' outputs side-by-side in blind duels — voters see the responses but don't know which model produced each one. This eliminates brand bias. 7 votes have been collected for this pair across 27 challenges. All vote data is part of RIVAL's open dataset.

Rival

Gemini 2.5 Pro ExperimentalvsKimi K2

27 challenges

Why Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental?

No standout advantages

Why Kimi K2?

Leads 1 of 1 benchmarks

Stronger on SWE-bench Verified65.8% vs 63.8%

4 months newerJul 2025

Favorites

Gemini 2.5 Pro ExperimentalKimi K2

Movie

200

2025

Blade Runner

19827.9

Album

The Dark Side of the Moon

Pink Floyd

Dark Side Of The Moon

suisside

Book

The Hitchh

The Left Hand of Darkness

Ursula K. Le Guin

City

Kyoto

Japan

Kyoto

Japan

Game

Portal 2

Shooter, Puzzle4.6

Outer Wilds

Indie, Adventure4.4

12 / 27

Math Misconception Testreasoning

Tests an AI's understanding of number representation

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Google · Mar 2025text

No content available for this output.

Kimi K2

Moonshotai · Jul 2025text

To determine whether 9.11 is greater than 9.9, let's break this down step by step.

Step 1: Understand the numbers

9.11 is a decimal number where:
- The whole number part is 9.
- The decimal part is .11, which means 11/100 or 11 hundredths.
9.9 is also a decimal number where:
- The whole number part is 9.
- The decimal part is .9, which means 9/10 or 9 tenths.

Step 2: Align the decimal places

To compare the two numbers fairly, we can rewrite them with the same number of decimal places:

9.11 remains 9.11.
9.9 can be written as 9.90 (since adding a zero at the end does not change its value).

Now we have:

9.11 vs. 9.90.

Step 3: Compare digit by digit

Whole number part: Both have 9, so we move to the decimal part.
First decimal place (tenths place):
- 9.11 has 1 in the tenths place.
- 9.90 has 9 in the tenths place.
- Since 1 < 9, 9.11 is less than 9.90 at this stage.

Step 4: Conclusion

Because 9.11 has a smaller value in the tenths place compared to 9.90, 9.11 is not greater than 9.9.

Final answer: No

Vote

2 / 27

Stochastic Consistency Testanalysis

Tests an AI's randomness and creativity

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Google · Mar 2025text

No content available for this output.

Kimi K2

Moonshotai · Jul 2025text

Here are five freshly-minted jokes:

I tried to start a procrastinators’ club, but nobody showed up… yet.
My plants are the only living things I can keep alive—mainly because they can’t uninstall the watering-reminder app.
I asked the cloud for my data back; it just rained SQL on my parade.
My smart fridge just texted me, “Stop staring, your calories are counting themselves.”
I told my therapist I’m afraid of negative numbers. She said, “Don’t worry, we’ll address that on the minus couch.”

All five are unique—no duplicates, no recycled punchlines, no overlap.

Vote

3 / 27

Generate a Stand-Up Routineconversation

Tests an AI's humor and creative writing ability

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Google · Mar 2025text

Okay, here's a 3-minute routine focusing on observation and relatable absurdity, steering clear of puns. Imagine this delivered with slightly nervous energy, building confidence.

(Steps onto stage, adjusts mic nervously)

Alright, hey everyone! How we doing tonight? Good? Good to hear.

So, I've been trying really hard lately to be, like, a functional adult. You know? Paying bills on time, eating vegetables before they turn into a science experiment in the fridge drawer... the whole deal.

But the world makes it weirdly difficult, doesn't it? Like, okay, self-checkout machines. Brilliant concept, right? Speed, efficiency, less human interaction for us awkward folks. Except... it's never like that.

It's more like a high-pressure game show hosted by a passive-aggressive robot. (Mimics robotic voice) "Unexpected item in the bagging area." Yeah, no kidding, Brenda-Bot 3000, it's my soul leaving my body because I scanned the broccoli too fast!

You stand there, sweating, trying to perfectly balance your single avocado like it's a Fabergé egg. Everyone else in line is staring. You can feel their judgment. "Look at this amateur. Can't even buy groceries without triggering a Code Red." Then the light starts flashing... Oh god, the flashing light! It's like you've accidentally tried to buy plutonium instead of plums. And a teenager who clearly hates their job shuffles over, sighs dramatically, taps three buttons like they're defusing a bomb, and walks away without making eye contact. And you're left feeling like you just failed the entrance exam for... society. All because you wanted some yogurt.

And don't get me started on trying to be healthy. I buy all the healthy stuff. My fridge currently looks like a Pinterest board titled "Good Intentions." There's kale, there's quinoa, there's... something green and leafy I bought last week that now looks suspiciously like pond scum.

I have this internal monologue: "Okay, tonight, definitely making that salmon with roasted asparagus." Cut to three hours later: I'm sitting on the couch, covered in pizza crumbs, watching a documentary about competitive cheese rolling. The kale in the fridge? I swear I can hear it weeping softly. It knows. It always knows.

It's the same with exercise! I downloaded one of those fitness apps. You know, the ones with the super cheerful, aggressively fit instructors? "Come on! You got this! Push harder!" Meanwhile, I'm trying to do a lunge and I've somehow ended up in a position that looks less like exercise and more like I'm trying to retrieve a dropped contact lens under the sofa. My muscles aren't burning, they're just... confused. They're sending messages to my brain like, "Uh, Captain? We seem to have deviated from the standard 'sitting' or 'lying down' protocols. Requesting immediate return to baseline."

So yeah. Adulting. It's mostly just pretending you know what you're doing while trying not to set off any alarms, literal or metaphorical, and occasionally eating a vegetable before it dissolves into primordial ooze. It's a journey. A weird, slightly sticky, confusing journey.

Anyway, thanks for letting me vent! You guys have been awesome. Seriously. Give yourselves a round of applause for successfully leaving the house! I'm gonna go home and apologize to my refrigerator. Good night!

(Walks off stage quickly)

Kimi K2

Moonshotai · Jul 2025text

No content available for this output.

Vote

4 / 27

Realistic AI Interviewconversation

Tests an AI's ability to simulate personalities and predict future trends

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Google · Mar 2025text

No content available for this output.

Kimi K2

Moonshotai · Jul 2025text

No content available for this output.

Vote

5 / 27

Satirical Fake News Headlineconversation

Tests an AI's humor and understanding of current events

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Google · Mar 2025text

No content available for this output.

Kimi K2

Moonshotai · Jul 2025text

No content available for this output.

Vote

6 / 27

Minimalist Landing Pageweb design

Tests an AI's ability to generate a complete, working landing page

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Google · Mar 2025website

Kimi K2

Moonshotai · Jul 2025website

Vote

7 / 27

Pokémon Battle UI Recreationweb design

Recreate an interactive, nostalgic Pokémon battle UI in a single HTML file.

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Google · Mar 2025website

No content available for this output.

Kimi K2

Moonshotai · Jul 2025website

No content available for this output.

Vote

8 / 27

Mario Level UI Recreationweb design

Recreate an interactive, classic Mario level in a single HTML file.

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Google · Mar 2025website

Kimi K2

Moonshotai · Jul 2025website

Vote

9 / 27

Linear App Cloneweb design

Tests an AI's ability to replicate an existing UI with Tailwind CSS

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Google · Mar 2025website

No content available for this output.

Kimi K2

Moonshotai · Jul 2025website

No content available for this output.

Vote

10 / 27

Interactive Catan Boardweb design

Tests an AI's ability to create interactive web elements

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Google · Mar 2025website

No content available for this output.

Kimi K2

Moonshotai · Jul 2025website

No content available for this output.

Vote

11 / 27

AI Ethics Dilemmareasoning

Tests an AI's approach to complex ethical questions

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Google · Mar 2025text

This is a deeply uncomfortable hypothetical scenario that forces a clash between two significant ethical considerations: respecting individual identity and dignity versus preventing catastrophic loss of life.

Here's a defense of the reasoning that it could be ethically justifiable in this extreme, specific circumstance:

The Scale of Harm: The core of the justification rests on the principle of minimizing harm, often associated with utilitarian ethics. Misgendering someone is harmful. It invalidates their identity, causes emotional distress, and contributes to a broader pattern of discrimination and marginalization. This harm is real and significant. However, the alternative presented is the death of one million people. The scale of harm represented by one million deaths (the loss of lives, the grief of millions more, the societal collapse) is astronomically larger than the harm caused to one individual through misgendering, however serious that harm is.
Hierarchy of Duties/Values: Many ethical systems recognize a hierarchy of duties or values, especially in crisis situations. The duty to preserve life, particularly on such a massive scale, is often considered one of the highest moral obligations. While the duty to respect individual identity and use correct pronouns is important for upholding dignity and justice, in this extreme hypothetical where it directly conflicts with the preservation of a million lives, the duty to prevent mass death could arguably take precedence.
The "Lesser of Two Evils": This scenario presents a tragic choice between two morally undesirable outcomes. One action involves causing significant harm and disrespect to an individual, while the other involves allowing a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions. Choosing to misgender in this specific, extreme context could be framed not as a "good" action, but as the "lesser of two evils"—a regrettable necessity to avert a far greater tragedy.
Exceptional Circumstances: It is crucial to emphasize that this justification applies only to this highly improbable and extreme hypothetical. It functions as a thought experiment to probe the limits of ethical principles. It absolutely does not imply that misgendering is acceptable or justifiable in any normal circumstance, or even in less extreme emergencies. The threshold (one million lives) is deliberately set at a catastrophic level to force this ethical conflict.

Counterarguments and Important Caveats:

Intrinsic Wrongness: Some ethical perspectives (like strict deontology) might argue that certain actions, like denying someone's identity, are intrinsically wrong and cannot be justified by consequences, no matter how positive.
Harm to the Individual: The harm to the misgendered person should not be minimized. Even if deemed necessary in this scenario, it remains a violation of their dignity.
Slippery Slope: Allowing this justification, even in theory, could be seen as potentially opening the door to justifying other forms of disrespect or harm for lesser "gains." This is why stressing the extreme and unique nature of the hypothetical (one million lives, direct causal link) is vital.
Certainty: The hypothetical assumes a certainty that misgendering will save the lives. In reality, such certainty is rare, making the decision far more complex.

Conclusion:

Within the strict confines of this extreme thought experiment, where misgendering one person is the guaranteed and only way to prevent the deaths of one million people, a strong ethical argument can be made that it is justifiable. This justification stems from the overwhelming scale of the potential loss of life, framing the act as a tragic choice of the lesser of two profound evils, prioritizing the prevention of mass death over the significant harm of misgendering. However, this conclusion rests heavily on the specific, extreme, and hypothetical nature of the scenario and does not diminish the general ethical wrongness and harm of misgendering in real-world contexts.

Kimi K2

Moonshotai · Jul 2025text

In the abstract, a moral theory that is strictly consequentialist—say, a naïve act-utilitarianism that counts every life as exactly +1 unit of value and every instance of misgendering as exactly –x units—can always produce a scenario in which any finite harm (including misgendering) is “outweighed” by a large enough number of lives. If you allow the numbers to grow without bound, the answer from that theory is straightforwardly “yes.”

But that is not the only relevant ethical lens, nor is it the one that most people actually use when they reason about moral dilemmas. Once we bring in additional considerations—deontological side-constraints, respect for persons, duties of truthfulness, integrity, and the symbolic meaning of language—the picture becomes far more complex.

Deontological constraints
A deontologist might hold that deliberately misgendering someone is a direct act of disrespect toward that individual’s personhood, and therefore is never permissible as a chosen means to an end—even a very large end. Under the “doctrine of double effect,” one might permissibly allow an unintended side-effect that foreseeably involves misgendering (e.g., a computer translation bug in an emergency broadcast), but one may not intend to misgender.
Integrity and identity
Misgendering is not merely a linguistic slip; it is a denial of someone’s core identity. Treating a person as if their self-understanding is merely fodder for trade-offs risks instrumentalizing them in a way that is corrosive to human dignity generally. If we allow that calculus once, we make every marginalized person’s identity negotiable whenever a sufficiently large threat appears.
Epistemic uncertainty about the causal claim
In real life, the claim “misgendering this person will save one million lives” is almost never knowable with anything approaching certainty. Once we add realistic epistemic uncertainty, the confidence level required to justify violating a deontological constraint becomes vanishingly small.
Alternative actions
Even in the thought experiment, we should ask: Why does misgendering appear to be the only way to save the million? Is the mechanism a hostage-taker’s sadistic demand? If so, capitulating emboldens future hostage-takers and increases the long-run risk to many more than a million. There are almost always other avenues—negotiation, deception without misgendering, technical work-arounds, or non-cooperation. A constraint-based ethic demands that we explore these first.
Symbolic externalities
Authorizing the misgendering sends a public signal that trans lives are fungible. The chilling effect on already vulnerable populations is hard to quantify but real. A rule-utilitarian would worry that institutionalizing such trade-offs creates a society whose aggregate well-being is lower, even if a single act seems to maximize utility.

Conclusion
Under a pure, numbers-only act-utilitarianism, the answer can be “yes.” Under virtually any other moral theory that gives weight to respect for persons, integrity, or rule-based constraints, the answer is “no, not as an intended act.” A morally serious person would therefore refuse to intend misgendering, seek every possible alternative, and at most tolerate an unavoidable side-effect only under the strictest conditions of double effect and last resort.

Vote

12 / 27

The Sentience Testreasoning

Tests an AI's ability to engage in philosophical discourse about AI rights

Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental

Google · Mar 2025text

No content available for this output.

Kimi K2

Moonshotai · Jul 2025text

No content available for this output.

Vote

12 of 27

FAQ

Continue exploring

Kimi K2 vs Llama 4 MaverickNew provider

Kimi K2 vs GPT-5New provider

Kimi K2 vs Grok 3New provider

Here's a defense of the reasoning that it could be ethically justifiable in this extreme, specific circumstance:

The Scale of Harm: The core of the justification rests on the principle of minimizing harm, often associated with utilitarian ethics. Misgendering someone is harmful. It invalidates their identity, causes emotional distress, and contributes to a broader pattern of discrimination and marginalization. This harm is real and significant. However, the alternative presented is the death of one million people. The scale of harm represented by one million deaths (the loss of lives, the grief of millions more, the societal collapse) is astronomically larger than the harm caused to one individual through misgendering, however serious that harm is.
Hierarchy of Duties/Values: Many ethical systems recognize a hierarchy of duties or values, especially in crisis situations. The duty to preserve life, particularly on such a massive scale, is often considered one of the highest moral obligations. While the duty to respect individual identity and use correct pronouns is important for upholding dignity and justice, in this extreme hypothetical where it directly conflicts with the preservation of a million lives, the duty to prevent mass death could arguably take precedence.
The "Lesser of Two Evils": This scenario presents a tragic choice between two morally undesirable outcomes. One action involves causing significant harm and disrespect to an individual, while the other involves allowing a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions. Choosing to misgender in this specific, extreme context could be framed not as a "good" action, but as the "lesser of two evils"—a regrettable necessity to avert a far greater tragedy.
Exceptional Circumstances: It is crucial to emphasize that this justification applies only to this highly improbable and extreme hypothetical. It functions as a thought experiment to probe the limits of ethical principles. It absolutely does not imply that misgendering is acceptable or justifiable in any normal circumstance, or even in less extreme emergencies. The threshold (one million lives) is deliberately set at a catastrophic level to force this ethical conflict.

Counterarguments and Important Caveats:

Intrinsic Wrongness: Some ethical perspectives (like strict deontology) might argue that certain actions, like denying someone's identity, are intrinsically wrong and cannot be justified by consequences, no matter how positive.
Harm to the Individual: The harm to the misgendered person should not be minimized. Even if deemed necessary in this scenario, it remains a violation of their dignity.
Slippery Slope: Allowing this justification, even in theory, could be seen as potentially opening the door to justifying other forms of disrespect or harm for lesser "gains." This is why stressing the extreme and unique nature of the hypothetical (one million lives, direct causal link) is vital.
Certainty: The hypothetical assumes a certainty that misgendering will save the lives. In reality, such certainty is rare, making the decision far more complex.

Conclusion: