whichllmmodel
Back to Dashboard
Moonshot AI (Kimi)

kimi-k2.6

VS
Z.ai (Zhipu AI)

GLM-5.1

✍️ Analysis by:the whichllmmodel Editorial Team|📅 Updated: June 2026

Decision Recommendation

⚖️ Editorial Verdict: In our analysis, kimi-k2.6 is the premium intelligence choice, scoring 0.2% higher on coding benchmarks. However, this accuracy premium comes with a cost overhead: GLM-5.1 is 1.1x cheaper to run. If you are building high-volume, simple chatbots or processing massive amounts of text where budget is critical, GLM-5.1 offers excellent cost savings. For agentic reasoning, code refactoring, or complex logical tasks, the accuracy premium of kimi-k2.6 fully justifies the cost.

Model Specs

kimi-k2.6

Benchmarks & Scores

Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+0.2%)
58.6%
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+4.3%)
90.5%

Cost & Performance

Cost (per 1M tokens)
$1.71Input: $0.95 | Output: $4.00
Speed
193 tps
Context WindowLarger
262.14k tokens
Model Specs

GLM-5.1

Benchmarks & Scores

Coding (swe-bench-pro)
58.4%
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
86.2%

Cost & Performance

Cost (per 1M tokens)1.1x cheaper
$1.50Input: $0.98 | Output: $3.08
Speed
N/A
Context Window
204.8k tokens

Frequently Asked Questions

GLM-5.1 is cheaper than kimi-k2.6. GLM-5.1 has a blended cost of $1.50/1M tokens, which is about 1.1x cheaper than kimi-k2.6 at $1.71/1M tokens.

Speed data is not available for GLM-5.1, while kimi-k2.6 generates 193 tokens per second.

kimi-k2.6 is better for coding tasks. It scores 58.6% on coding evaluations (swe-bench-pro) compared to GLM-5.1 which scores 58.4%.

Want to customize weights or add more models?

Open our interactive dashboard where you can adjust your priority levels for speed, budget, or accuracy slider-bars and watch model rankings calculate dynamically.

Customize in Interactive Dashboard