Kimi K3 vs GLM-5.2
Benchmarks, API Token Pricing, Context Window & Speed Comparison
Related topics (12)
Kimi K3 by Moonshot AI and GLM-5.2 by Zhipu AI represent two of the frontier AI models analyzed in our comprehensive 2026 AI benchmark and LLM comparison. In this head-to-head evaluation, we examine API token pricing, context window specifications, inference speed (tokens per second), and empirical reasoning performance. From a pure economic perspective, both models offer identical input token rates. On output generation, costs are matched. In data-heavy architectures requiring extensive repository or document analysis, Kimi K3 provides an expanded memory horizon with 1,049K tokens. In latency-sensitive production environments, GLM-5.2 leads in tokens-per-second throughput, making it ideal for real-time conversational agents and high-concurrency workflows. Below is the complete empirical head-to-head breakdown across cost, speed, context, and capability matrices.
切换并对比任意模型
Select any AI models from our verified benchmark database to generate live side-by-side matrices.
Kimi K3
开源权重模型Moonshot AI 推出的 Kimi K3 人工智能模型，具备 1.0M 上下文窗口，输入价格为 $0/百万 Token，输出价格为 $0/百万 Token，专为高质量生产环境、推理与自动化工作流打造。
$0.00 / 1M
$0.00 / 1M
1.05M tokens
74.5%
GLM-5.2
开源权重模型Zhipu AI 推出的 GLM-5.2 人工智能模型，具备 1M 上下文窗口，输入价格为 $0/百万 Token，输出价格为 $0/百万 Token，专为高质量生产环境、推理与自动化工作流打造。
$0.00 / 1M
$0.00 / 1M
1M tokens
67.5%
核心差异一览
- Both models cost the same under this workload — choose on capability, not price.
- Kimi K3 has a larger context window (1M vs 1M tokens).
- GLM-5.2 is faster at 60 tok/s vs 58 tok/s.
- Kimi K3 leads on SWE-bench coding (74.5% vs 67.5%).
| Feature | Kimi K3 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
Intelligence Index Composite reasoning & knowledge score (0-100) | 93 | 91 |
Provider | Moonshot AI | Zhipu AI |
Input Price Cost per million input tokens | $0.00 / 1M | $0.00 / 1M |
Output Price Cost per million output tokens | $0.00 / 1M | $0.00 / 1M |
Blended Price Weighted 7:2:1 cache:input:output per 1M | $0.00 / 1M | $0.00 / 1M |
Context Window Maximum input + output tokens | 1.05M tokens~1,573 A4 pages of text | 1M tokens~1,500 A4 pages of text |
Max Output Tokens Per single request | 131K | 32K |
Throughput Speed Tokens generated per second | 58 tok/s | 60 tok/s |
SWE-bench Verified Real-world software engineering | 74.5% | 67.5% |
GPQA Diamond Graduate-level reasoning | 79% | 73.5% |
各项指标谁更胜一筹？
At-a-glance decision framework权威基准测试得分对比
Official evaluation metrics verified by independent third-party research labs.
Industry benchmark evaluating real-world GitHub issue resolution and multi-file debugging.
Challenging questions created by domain experts to test complex PhD-level reasoning.
Hardened reasoning and academic knowledge benchmark with reduced lucky-guess probability.
Crowdsourced human preference evaluation based on blind, head-to-head model battles.
Tokens emitted per second during active generation streaming.
延迟与响应速度
Time to first token (TTFT) and estimated end-to-end response time for a typical 500-token response.
实时 Token 成本模拟器
Adjust sliders to calculate projected monthly cloud API spending with prompt caching discounts.
Kimi K3 · Strengths & Key Advantages
- 由 Moonshot AI 研发的高精度 Colossus-Scale Multimodal Sparse Mixture-of-Experts 架构，支持 1.0M 上下文窗口
- 极具竞争力的 API 定价（输入 $0/1M，输出 $0/1M），支持高速推理与工具调用
- 在代码生成、逻辑推理与多语言处理基准测试中表现出色
Considerations & Trade-offs
- 超长上下文请求需要规划 Token 成本与并发配额
- 针对特定垂直领域任务建议结合系统提示词与检索增强（RAG）以获得最佳效果
GLM-5.2 · Strengths & Key Advantages
- 由 Zhipu AI 研发的高精度 Massive Million-Token Open MoE Frontier Transformer 架构，支持 1M 上下文窗口
- 极具竞争力的 API 定价（输入 $0/1M，输出 $0/1M），支持高速推理与工具调用
- 在代码生成、逻辑推理与多语言处理基准测试中表现出色
Considerations & Trade-offs
- 超长上下文请求需要规划 Token 成本与并发配额
- 针对特定垂直领域任务建议结合系统提示词与检索增强（RAG）以获得最佳效果
Token Use & Task Economics
Estimated cost and token consumption to complete one representative agentic task.
| Metric | Kimi K3 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
Cost per Task Estimated USD to finish one task | $2.00 | $0.00 |
Output Tokens / Task Tokens generated per task | 35K | 30K |
Reasoning Tokens / Task Thinking tokens burned per task | 18K | 12K |
技术规格参数
Architecture, release timeline, capabilities, and modalities.
| Feature | Kimi K3 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Official API Model ID (SDK) | kimi-k3 | glm-5-2 |
| API Protocol | OpenAI-Compatible REST / vLLM / SGLang / HuggingFace TGI | OpenAI-Compatible REST / vLLM / SGLang / HuggingFace TGI |
| Release Date | 2026-07 | 2026-06 |
| Knowledge Cutoff | March 2026 | February 2026 |
| Architecture | Colossus-Scale Multimodal Sparse Mixture-of-Experts | Massive Million-Token Open MoE Frontier Transformer |
| Parameters | 2.8T total (MoE) | 350B MoE |
| Enterprise Rate Limits (RPM / TPM) | Unlimited (Hardware-bound on self-hosted GPU) / 10,000 RPM Cloud · Unlimited local throughput / 10M+ TPM Managed Cloud | Unlimited (Hardware-bound on self-hosted GPU) / 10,000 RPM Cloud · Unlimited local throughput / 10M+ TPM Managed Cloud |
| Long-Context Tier (>128K/200K) | Free across full context window (only KV-cache VRAM scales) | Free across full context window (only KV-cache VRAM scales) |
| Prompt Cache Policy & TTL | Automatic prefix KV-caching in vLLM / SGLang (0 cost) | Automatic prefix KV-caching in vLLM / SGLang (0 cost) |
| Computer Use / GUI Agent | Supported (Screen coordinate grounding, browser & desktop GUI action loops) | API / CLI Tool-Use & DOM Agent ready (no raw pixel desktop click loop) |
| MCP & Parallel Tool Calling | Native MCP Client/Server ready · Parallel function calling · 100% Strict JSON Schema | Native MCP Client/Server ready · Parallel function calling · 100% Strict JSON Schema |
| Web Search Grounding & Sandbox | Supported via external Tavily/Exa Search & E2B/Docker Sandbox tools | Supported via external Tavily/Exa Search & E2B/Docker Sandbox tools |
| Official Fine-Tuning Support | Full Weights SFT, LoRA, QLoRA, DPO & GRPO RL (Unsloth / Axolotl / Llama-Factory) | Full Weights SFT, LoRA, QLoRA, DPO & GRPO RL (Unsloth / Axolotl / Llama-Factory) |
| Multimodal Token Billing | Text BPE (~4 chars/token) · Vision (~258–765 tokens per image tile) | Text BPE (~4 chars/token) |
| Quantization & Min GPU VRAM | BF16 / FP16, FP8 Dynamic, INT4 AWQ / GPTQ, GGUF (Q4_K_M / Q8_0) · 1736 GB VRAM (4-bit Quantized) · 6020 GB VRAM (Native BF16) | BF16 / FP16, FP8 Dynamic, INT4 AWQ / GPTQ, GGUF (Q4_K_M / Q8_0) · 217 GB VRAM (4-bit Quantized) · 753 GB VRAM (Native BF16) |
| Safety & Frontier Classification | Open-Weights System Card + Customizable Guardrail Layer (Llama Guard / ShieldGemma) | Open-Weights System Card + Customizable Guardrail Layer (Llama Guard / ShieldGemma) |
| Enterprise Compliance (ZDR/HIPAA/SOC2) | 100% Air-Gapped On-Premises / Private VPC · Full HIPAA, GDPR & SOC2 Control | 100% Air-Gapped On-Premises / Private VPC · Full HIPAA, GDPR & SOC2 Control |
| Input Modalities | text, vision | text |
| Output Modalities | text | text |
Kimi K3 vs GLM-5.2: 常见问题解答 (FAQ)
Which is more intelligent, Kimi K3 or GLM-5.2?
Kimi K3 is more intelligent. It scores 93 compared with 91 on the composite Intelligence Index.
Which model is faster?
GLM-5.2 is faster, generating 60 tokens per second compared with 58 tokens per second.
Which model has lower latency?
GLM-5.2 has lower latency, with a time to first token of 0.65s compared with 0.72s.
Which model has a larger context window?
Kimi K3 has a larger context window, supporting 1.05M tokens compared with 1M tokens.
综合结论
Verdict & Model Selection Recommendation: Choose Kimi K3 if your priority is National AI research facilities, sovereign enterprise clouds, and frontier STEM reasoning. Its performance in demanding tasks justifies its operational token cost. Choose GLM-5.2 if your workflow prioritizes Large-scale repository refactoring, national research initiatives, and sovereign enterprise intelligence. For large-scale batch processing or customer-facing conversational interfaces, its balance of speed and economics delivers superior ROI.
常见问题 (FAQ)
How does Kimi K3 compare to GLM-5.2 in API token pricing and cost per token?+
Both Kimi K3 and GLM-5.2 are open-weights foundation models available at $0.00 direct API cost when self-hosted, or offered at identical baseline rates across major inference providers. Model selection depends on GPU deployment sizing and specialized benchmark performance rather than raw token price.
Which model has a larger context window: Kimi K3 or GLM-5.2?+
Kimi K3 supports a context window of 1,049K tokens (~786k words), while GLM-5.2 supports 1,000K tokens (~750k words). Therefore, Kimi K3 can process more textual data and document context in a single prompt.
Which AI model is better for software engineering and coding: Kimi K3 or GLM-5.2?+
Kimi K3 scores 74.5% on SWE-bench Verified while GLM-5.2 scores 67.5%. For autonomous software engineering and multi-file debugging, Kimi K3 holds the verified benchmark lead.
What is the difference in reasoning capability and extended thinking between Kimi K3 and GLM-5.2?+
Kimi K3 features native chain-of-thought extended thinking mode with configurable reasoning effort. In contrast, GLM-5.2 provides chain-of-thought reasoning depth for complex math and science.
How does inference speed (tokens per second) compare between Kimi K3 and GLM-5.2?+
Kimi K3 generates approximately 58 tokens per second, while GLM-5.2 delivers 60 tokens per second. In latency-sensitive production environments, GLM-5.2 provides faster time-to-first-token (TTFT) and higher streaming response velocity.
Can you implement a tiered LLM routing setup combining Kimi K3 and GLM-5.2 to optimize costs?+
Yes! Tiered multi-model routing can optimize for latency and accuracy: you can route high-frequency conversational turns and latency-sensitive queries to GLM-5.2, and route deep architectural or complex reasoning queries to Kimi K3. This balanced routing strategy maximizes system throughput and answer quality.
Understand key metrics like context window, token pricing, reasoning mode, and SWE-bench scores in our comprehensive AI glossary.
Related reading
- DeepSeek V4.1-Flash vs GLM-5.2: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison对比
- GLM-5.1 vs GLM-5.2: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison对比
- Kimi K3 vs GPT-6 Astra: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison对比
- Llama 5 vs Kimi K3: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison对比
- Aion-3.0 vs Aion-Mini: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison对比
- Aion-3.0 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison对比
Benchmark scores, token prices, and rate limits evolve rapidly as AI labs release model updates. Always verify current specifications and pricing on the official provider documentation.
数据来源: GetInfoUs Independent AI Benchmarks & Official API Specs