GLM-5.1 vs Kimi K2.6
GLM-5.1 (2026) and Kimi K2.6 (2026) are agentic coding models from Zhipu AI and Moonshot AI. GLM-5.1 ships a 200k-token context window, while Kimi K2.6 ships a 262K-token context window. On Google-Proof Q&A, Kimi K2.6 leads by 4.3 pts. On pricing, Kimi K2.6 costs $0.75/1M input tokens versus $1.05/1M for the alternative. This comparison covers specs, pricing, capabilities, benchmarks, provider availability, and production fit.
Kimi K2.6 is ~40% cheaper at $0.75/1M; pay for GLM-5.1 only for coding workflow support.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | GLM-5.1 | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Decision fit | Coding, RAG, and Agents | Coding, RAG, and Agents |
| Context window | 200k | 262K |
| Cheapest output | $3.5/1M tokens | $3.5/1M tokens |
| Provider routes | 3 tracked | 5 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 2 rows | Google-Proof Q&A leader |
Decision tradeoffs
- GLM-5.1 uniquely exposes Structured outputs and Code execution in local model data.
- Local decision data tags GLM-5.1 for Coding, RAG, and Agents.
- Kimi K2.6 leads the largest shared benchmark signal on Google-Proof Q&A by 4.3 points.
- Kimi K2.6 has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- Kimi K2.6 has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
- Kimi K2.6 uniquely exposes Vision and Multimodal in local model data.
- Local decision data tags Kimi K2.6 for Coding, RAG, and Agents.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output prices on this page.
GLM-5.1
$1,715
Cheapest tracked route: OpenRouter
Kimi K2.6
$1,475
Cheapest tracked route: OpenRouter
Estimated monthly gap: $240. Batch, cache, and negotiated pricing are excluded from this local estimate.
Switch friction
- Provider overlap exists on Fireworks AI and OpenRouter; start route-level A/B tests there.
- Cheapest tracked output pricing is tied, so migration risk shifts to quality, latency, and provider packaging.
- Check replacement coverage for Structured outputs and Code execution before moving production traffic.
- Kimi K2.6 adds Vision and Multimodal in local capability data.
- Provider overlap exists on OpenRouter and Fireworks AI; start route-level A/B tests there.
- Cheapest tracked output pricing is tied, so migration risk shifts to quality, latency, and provider packaging.
- Check replacement coverage for Vision and Multimodal before moving production traffic.
- GLM-5.1 adds Structured outputs and Code execution in local capability data.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2026-04-07 | 2026-04-20 |
| Context window | 200k | 262K |
| Parameters | 754B total, 40B active | 1T |
| Architecture | mixture of experts | Mixture of Experts (MoE) |
| License | MIT | Open Source |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | - |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | GLM-5.1 | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $1.05/1M tokens | $0.75/1M tokens |
| Output price | $3.5/1M tokens | $3.5/1M tokens |
| Providers |
Capabilities
| Capability | GLM-5.1 | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | No | Yes |
| Multimodal | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Function calling | Yes | Yes |
| Tool use | Yes | Yes |
| Structured outputs | Yes | No |
| Code execution | Yes | No |
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Google-Proof Q&A | 86.2 | 90.5 |
| SWE-bench Pro | 58.4 | 58.6 |
Deep dive
On shared benchmark coverage, Google-Proof Q&A has GLM-5.1 at 86.2 and Kimi K2.6 at 90.5, with Kimi K2.6 ahead by 4.3 points; SWE-bench Pro has GLM-5.1 at 58.4 and Kimi K2.6 at 58.6, with Kimi K2.6 ahead by 0.2 points. The largest visible gap is 4.3 points on Google-Proof Q&A, which matters most when that benchmark mirrors your workload. Treat isolated benchmark wins as directional, because provider routing, prompt style, and tool access can move real application results.
The capability footprint differs most on vision: Kimi K2.6, multimodal input: Kimi K2.6, structured outputs: GLM-5.1, and code execution: GLM-5.1. Both models share reasoning mode, function calling, and tool use, so the practical split is not just feature count. Use those differences to decide whether the page is about raw model quality, agentic coding support, multimodal ingestion, or predictable structured API behavior.
For cost, GLM-5.1 lists $1.05/1M input and $3.5/1M output tokens, while Kimi K2.6 lists $0.75/1M input and $3.5/1M output tokens on the cheapest tracked provider. A 70/30 input-output blend puts Kimi K2.6 lower by about $0.21 per million blended tokens. Availability is 3 providers versus 5, so concentration risk also matters.
Choose GLM-5.1 when coding workflow support are central to the workload. Choose Kimi K2.6 when coding workflow support, larger context windows, and lower input-token cost are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship.
FAQ
Which has a larger context window, GLM-5.1 or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 supports 262K tokens, while GLM-5.1 supports 200k tokens. That gap matters most for long documents, large codebases, retrieval-heavy agents, and conversations where earlier context must remain visible. Use this as a quick comparison signal, then confirm the provider-specific limits before committing to production.
Which is cheaper, GLM-5.1 or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 is cheaper on tracked token pricing. GLM-5.1 costs $1.05/1M input and $3.5/1M output tokens. Kimi K2.6 costs $0.75/1M input and $3.5/1M output tokens. Provider discounts or batch pricing can still change the final bill.
Is GLM-5.1 or Kimi K2.6 open source?
GLM-5.1 is listed under MIT. Kimi K2.6 is listed under Open Source. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.
Which is better for vision, GLM-5.1 or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 has the clearer documented vision signal in this comparison. If vision is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ. Use this as a quick comparison signal, then confirm the provider-specific limits before committing to production.
Which is better for multimodal input, GLM-5.1 or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 has the clearer documented multimodal input signal in this comparison. If multimodal input is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Where can I run GLM-5.1 and Kimi K2.6?
GLM-5.1 is available on Z.ai, OpenRouter, and Fireworks AI. Kimi K2.6 is available on NVIDIA NIM, Moonshot AI Kimi, Fireworks AI, OpenRouter, and Microsoft Foundry. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-05-16. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.