Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.6 vs Kimi K3.1 Pro

Kimi K3.1 Pro leads GLM 4.6 on coding, 82.2 to 8.8 on the Vibe Coding Index, and GLM 4.6 costs 4.5x less per output token ($2.20 vs $10.00 per million). Updated October 29, 2026; 14 benchmarks have a result for both.

GLM 4.6Z.ai
Coding
8.8
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$2.20
0
Kimi K3.1 ProMoonshot AI
Coding
82.2
Overall
74.4
Output $/M
$10.00
14
vs boards won of 14 shared

GLM 4.6 or Kimi K3.1 Pro: which to pick

Pick Kimi K3.1 Pro for coding: it scores 82.2 on the Vibe Coding Index against 8.8 for GLM 4.6.

Pick GLM 4.6 for output tokens 4.5x cheaper ($2.20 vs $10.00 per million).

Shared results
14
GLM 4.6 only
54
Kimi K3.1 Pro only
21
Like-for-like categories
5 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
GLM 4.6 8.8 from 2 benchmarks, Kimi K3.1 Pro 82.2 from 4 benchmarks.
Widest category
Coding, 56.7 points apart on average over 4 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI): GLM 4.6 3.1% against Kimi K3.1 Pro 84.9%, 81.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 4.6 $2.20 against Kimi K3.1 Pro $10.00 per million output tokens, 4.5x apart.
Context window
GLM 4.6 takes 205K tokens, Kimi K3.1 Pro 1.05M.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGLM 4.6BarsKimi K3.1 ProTies
Coding04
Reasoning01
Math01
Web design07
General01
All shared boards014
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index04
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Kimi K3.1 Pro
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Kimi K3.1 ProLeader
SWE-bench Verified68.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LiveBench codingNot measured81.8%Only Kimi K3.1 Pro measured
LMArena WebDev13411695Kimi K3.1 Pro
AA Coding Index45.8Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)81.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)Not measured63.6%Only Kimi K3.1 Pro measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)3.1%84.9%Kimi K3.1 Pro
IOI (Vals AI)Not measured81.9%Only Kimi K3.1 Pro measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)69.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
SciCodeNot measured60.8%Only Kimi K3.1 Pro measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)28.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Terminal-Bench24.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
ALE-Bench340.81932.8Kimi K3.1 Pro
LMArena Text: coding1449Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1455Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1701Only Kimi K3.1 Pro measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML13501706Kimi K3.1 Pro
Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Kimi K3.1 Pro
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Kimi K3.1 ProLeader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured46.0Only Kimi K3.1 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index16 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Kimi K3.1 Pro
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Kimi K3.1 ProLeader
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps1029Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1095Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android apps1081Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot games1180Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LiveBench researchNot measured77.9%Only Kimi K3.1 Pro measured
LiveBench browserNot measured75.9%Only Kimi K3.1 Pro measured
LiveBench long agenticNot measured39.1%Only Kimi K3.1 Pro measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured24.9%Only Kimi K3.1 Pro measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured37.5%Only Kimi K3.1 Pro measured
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured11.7%Only Kimi K3.1 Pro measured
BioMysteryBench (Vals AI)Not measured75.6%Only Kimi K3.1 Pro measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)Not measured31.4%Only Kimi K3.1 Pro measured
Vals Science IndexNot measured44.4%Only Kimi K3.1 Pro measured
τ²-Bench Telecom76.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)72.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
BrowseComp-Plus48.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Kimi K3.1 Pro
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Kimi K3.1 ProLeader
GPQA Diamond74.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LiveBench reasoningNot measured91.1%Only Kimi K3.1 Pro measured
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)Not measured26.1%Only Kimi K3.1 Pro measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)78.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)14.5%52.5%Kimi K3.1 Pro
LMArena Text: hard prompts1440Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: expert1431Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1445Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark45.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Math benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Kimi K3.1 Pro
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Kimi K3.1 ProLeader
AIME92.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)89.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)86.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
ProofBenchNot measured91.0%Only Kimi K3.1 Pro measured
LMArena Text: math1432Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1447Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
MathArena15.9%59.6%Kimi K3.1 Pro
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Kimi K3.1 Pro
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Kimi K3.1 ProLeader
MMLU Pro82.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)79.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)56.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)66.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)92.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)82.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: science1456Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1455Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1448Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1416Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index07
Web design benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Kimi K3.1 Pro
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Kimi K3.1 ProLeader
Design Arena: websites11731325Kimi K3.1 Pro
Design Arena: UI components11421400Kimi K3.1 Pro
Design Arena: game dev11501410Kimi K3.1 Pro
Design Arena: data viz11621300Kimi K3.1 Pro
Design Arena: 3D11251451Kimi K3.1 Pro
Design Arena: all code categories11641354Kimi K3.1 Pro
Design Arena: SVG11061328Kimi K3.1 Pro
LiveBench designNot measured77.8%Only Kimi K3.1 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
General benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Kimi K3.1 Pro
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Kimi K3.1 ProLeader
Vals IndexNot measured62.5%Only Kimi K3.1 Pro measured
LiveBench data analysisNot measured79.1%Only Kimi K3.1 Pro measured
IFBench43.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)54.0%86.3%Kimi K3.1 Pro
LMArena Text1440Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1410Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1412Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: English1449Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: non-English1426Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1499Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: German1447Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1393Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1402Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: French1460Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1436Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: Russian1418Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: Polish1447Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1427Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1422Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1416Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1409Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Kimi K3.1 Pro
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Kimi K3.1 ProLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

GLM 4.6$0.0017Fits in one request
Kimi K3.1 Pro$0.0070Fits in one request

GLM 4.6 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 4.6$0.037Fits in one request
Kimi K3.1 Pro$0.130Fits in one request

GLM 4.6 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 4.6$0.142Exceeds the context window
Kimi K3.1 Pro$0.500Fits in one request

GLM 4.6 costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of GLM 4.6 and Kimi K3.1 Pro
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.6MoonshotAI Kimi K3.1 Pro
MakerZ.aiMoonshot AI
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedSeptember 30, 2025October 23, 2026
Context window205K1.05M
Input $/Mtok$0.60$2.00
Output $/Mtok$2.20$10.00
Coding index8.882.2
Independent measurements behind it24
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 4.6 better than Kimi K3.1 Pro for coding?

Pick Kimi K3.1 Pro for coding: it scores 82.2 on the Vibe Coding Index against 8.8 for GLM 4.6. Pick GLM 4.6 for output tokens 4.5x cheaper ($2.20 vs $10.00 per million).

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.6 or Kimi K3.1 Pro?

GLM 4.6 costs $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; Kimi K3.1 Pro costs $2.00 and $10.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 4.6 or Kimi K3.1 Pro?

Kimi K3.1 Pro, with 1.05M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 4.6 vs Kimi K3.1 Pro comparison based on?

14 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 29, 2026. GLM 4.6's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Kimi K3.1 Pro's on 4. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next

Embed this comparison on your site

Free under CC BY 4.0, while the source link stays visible. Preview the frame · Terms and other embeds

<iframe src="https://llmbenchmark.ai/embed/compare/glm-4-6-vs-kimi-k3-1-pro" title="GLM 4.6 vs Kimi K3.1 Pro, LLMBenchmark.ai" width="100%" height="360" style="border:0;max-width:100%" loading="lazy"></iframe>
<p style="font:13px/1.4 sans-serif;margin:6px 0 0">Source: <a href="https://llmbenchmark.ai/compare/glm-4-6-vs-kimi-k3-1-pro">LLMBenchmark.ai, GLM 4.6 vs Kimi K3.1 Pro</a></p>