ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

GLM-5.2 vs GLM-5.1 vs Kimi K2.6

Kimi K2.6 comes out ahead, 65 to 61 and 57 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Z.ai (Zhipu)

    GLM-5.2

    Released Jun 13, 2026

    61/100
    • ECI151.8
    • Price$1.40 / $4.40
    • Context1M
  2. Z.ai (Zhipu)

    GLM-5.1

    Released Apr 7, 2026

    57/100
    • ECI149.9
    • Price$1.40 / $4.40
    • Context200K
  3. Our pick

    Moonshot AI

    Kimi K2.6

    Released Apr 21, 2026

    65/100
    • ECI151.1
    • Price$0.95 / $4.00
    • Context262K
01 — Verdict

Kimi K2.6 is our pick

Kimi K2.6 is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against GLM-5.2 (61) and GLM-5.1 (57). It leads on price and inputs & features. GLM-5.2 wins on context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityGLM-5.2Capabilities Index (ECI): GLM-5.2 151.8 · Kimi K2.6 151.1 · GLM-5.1 149.9
  • Lowest priceKimi K2.6Kimi K2.6 $1.71 · GLM-5.2 $2.15 · GLM-5.1 $2.15 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGLM-5.2GLM-5.2 1,000,000 · Kimi K2.6 262,144 · GLM-5.1 200,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsKimi K2.6GLM-5.2: Text · GLM-5.1: Text · Kimi K2.6: Text, Images, Video
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGLM-5.2GLM-5.1Kimi K2.6
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%807879
Price25%343439
Inputs & features15%454580
Context window10%603237
Overall100%61/10057/10065/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

GLM-5.2 vs GLM-5.1 vs Kimi K2.6 specifications side by side
SpecificationGLM-5.2Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-5.1Z.ai (Zhipu)Kimi K2.6Moonshot AI
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)151.8 (best)149.9151.1
ECI rank#44 of 148 (best)#51 of 148#45 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions91.9% (best)89.9%90.8%
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics59.2% (best)36.8%57.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics86.4%93.3%96.1% (best)
SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues78.7% (best)74.2%76.7%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions34.2%34.0%34.9% (best)
Price per million tokens
Input$1.40$1.40$0.95 (best)
Output$4.40$4.40$4.00 (best)
Cached input$0.26$0.26$0.16 (best)
Blended (3:1)$2.15$2.15$1.71 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Z.AI APIOfficial Z.AI APIOfficial Moonshot AI API
Limits
Context window1,000,000 tokens (best)200,000 tokens262,144 tokens
Max output131,072 tokens131,072 tokens262,144 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesNoNoYes
PDFsNoNoNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoNoNoYes
ReasoningYeshigh · maxYesYes
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputYesYesYes
Availability
WeightsOpenOpenOpen
API model IDglm-5.2glm-5.1kimi-k2.6
API providers80 (best)4046
ReleasedJun 13, 2026Apr 7, 2026Apr 21, 2026
Knowledge cutoff——Jan 2025
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • GLM-5.2$22.80
  • GLM-5.1$22.80
  • Kimi K2.6$17.50
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: GLM-5.2, GLM-5.1 or Kimi K2.6?

Kimi K2.6 is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against GLM-5.2 (61) and GLM-5.1 (57). It leads on price and inputs & features. GLM-5.2 wins on context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, GLM-5.2, GLM-5.1 or Kimi K2.6?

Kimi K2.6 is cheaper at $0.95 input / $4.00 output per million tokens (official Moonshot AI API price). GLM-5.2 costs $1.40 input / $4.40 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price); GLM-5.1 costs $1.40 input / $4.40 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $1.71 per million tokens for Kimi K2.6 versus $2.15 for GLM-5.2 (1.3× as much) and $2.15 for GLM-5.1 (1.3× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

GLM-5.2 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): GLM-5.2 151.8 (#44 of 148), Kimi K2.6 151.1 (#45 of 148) and GLM-5.1 149.9 (#51 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (149.8–154.0 vs 149.1–152.8), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — GLM-5.2 91.9%, Kimi K2.6 90.8%, GLM-5.1 89.9%; FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 — GLM-5.2 59.2%, Kimi K2.6 57.2%, GLM-5.1 36.8%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Kimi K2.6 96.1%, GLM-5.1 93.3%, GLM-5.2 86.4%; SWE-bench Verified — GLM-5.2 78.7%, Kimi K2.6 76.7%, GLM-5.1 74.2%; SimpleQA Verified — Kimi K2.6 34.9%, GLM-5.2 34.2%, GLM-5.1 34.0%.

Which is better for coding?

GLM-5.2 resolves more real GitHub issues on SWE-bench Verified: GLM-5.2 78.7%, Kimi K2.6 76.7% and GLM-5.1 74.2%. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-5.2 has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 262,144 for Kimi K2.6 and 200,000 for GLM-5.1. Maximum output per response: GLM-5.2 up to 131,072, GLM-5.1 up to 131,072, Kimi K2.6 up to 262,144 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

GLM-5.2 accepts text; GLM-5.1 accepts text; Kimi K2.6 accepts text, images and video. Kimi K2.6 handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Yes, all three publish their weights, so you can self-host them.

Which is newer?

GLM-5.2 is the newest, released Jun 13, 2026. Kimi K2.6 came out Apr 21, 2026; GLM-5.1 came out Apr 7, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Kimi K2.6 Jan 2025.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.