Model comparison
GLM-4.5 vs Kimi K2.6
Kimi K2.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.7 to 42.0 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.5 costs 1.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Kimi K2.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.5 scores higher in 0 categories and Kimi K2.6 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Kimi K2.6 leads 54.0 to 35.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 40.6% for GLM-4.5 and 55.9% for Kimi K2.6.
- GLM-4.5 is cheaper at $0.60 / $2.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.95 / $4 for Kimi K2.6.
- Kimi K2.6 accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 131K.
Side by side
| GLM-4.5 | Kimi K2.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Moonshot AI |
| Noometry Index | 42.0 | 47.7 |
| Released | 2025-07-27 | 2026-04-20 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 131K | 262K |
| Max output | 98K | 262K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $0.95 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.20 | $4 |
| Results tracked | 27 | 51 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Kimi K2.6 leads
GLM-4.5: 41.4 (#125), Kimi K2.6: 50.7 (#43)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 40.6% | 55.9% |
| LMArena Coding | 1434 | 1488 |
| ALE-Bench | 344.82 | 1,093 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 76.7% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 54.2% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1509 |
| SciCode | — | 53.5% |
| AlgoTune | 1.52 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.5: —, Kimi K2.6: 21.9 (#137)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|
| OSWorld 2.0 | — | 4.6% |
| ExploitBench | — | 18.4% |
| GBAEval | — | 0.9% |
| GDP.pdf | — | 12% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 6,205 |
Reasoning Kimi K2.6 leads
GLM-4.5: 28.6 (#100), Kimi K2.6: 40.5 (#55)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1429 | 1470 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 57.9% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 87.2% |
| CritPt | — | 8% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 26% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 2.4% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 18% |
| DTBench | — | 90.9% |
| LMCA | — | 37.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 151.05 |
Math Kimi K2.6 leads
GLM-4.5: 39.0 (#116), Kimi K2.6: 57.0 (#41)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1427 | 1475 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 57.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 25.6% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 72.9% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 96.1% |
| ProofBench | — | 16% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 39% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 14.6% |
Knowledge Kimi K2.6 leads
GLM-4.5: 35.9 (#179), Kimi K2.6: 54.0 (#54)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1433 | 1491 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 90.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8.3% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 34.9% |
| Confabulations | 11.3% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.8% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.5: —, Kimi K2.6: 31.6 (#103)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1283 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 3.9% |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 21.7% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1451 |
Multilingual Kimi K2.6 leads
GLM-4.5: 52.8 (#77), Kimi K2.6: 54.9 (#37)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1417 | 1446 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1465 | 1521 |
| LMArena French | 1418 | 1471 |
| LMArena German | 1407 | 1450 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1415 | 1443 |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | 1427 |
| LMArena Russian | 1414 | 1446 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1454 | 1464 |
Instruction Following Kimi K2.6 leads
GLM-4.5: 74.1 (#104), Kimi K2.6: 76.3 (#43)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1404 | 1451 |
Long Context Kimi K2.6 leads
GLM-4.5: 38.2 (#201), Kimi K2.6: 44.9 (#52)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1412 | 1468 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 58.3% | — |
Writing & Preference Kimi K2.6 leads
GLM-4.5: 57.5 (#127), Kimi K2.6: 68.5 (#26)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1430 | 1455 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1395 | 1434 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1343 | 1725 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1415 | 1453 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 73.4% | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1202 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.5 better than Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.7 to 42.0 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.5 costs 1.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Kimi K2.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.5 or Kimi K2.6?
GLM-4.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; Kimi K2.6 lists at $0.95 and $4.
Is GLM-4.5 or Kimi K2.6 better for coding?
Kimi K2.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.7 versus 41.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Kimi K2.6 does, with 262K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.5 and Kimi K2.6 share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.5 has 27 scored results on Noometry and Kimi K2.6 has 51.