Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 5.1 vs Kimi K2.6

Kimi K2.6 leads GLM 5.1 on coding, 52.1 to 49.2 on the Vibe Coding Index, at about the same output price ($4.00 vs $4.40 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 86 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace GLM 5.1 Replace Kimi K2.6
GLM 5.1Z.ai
Coding
49.2
Overall
57.5
Output $/M
$4.40
41
Kimi K2.6Moonshot AI
Coding
52.1
Overall
60.5
Output $/M
$4.00
43
vs boards won of 86 shared, 2 tied

GLM 5.1 or Kimi K2.6: which to pick

Pick Kimi K2.6 for coding: it scores 52.1 on the Vibe Coding Index against 49.2 for GLM 5.1.

Pick GLM 5.1 for work measured by SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) or Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI), where it leads.

Model AGLM 5.1Z.ai49.2/1003 independent benchmarks$0.60 per solved taskModel BKimi K2.6Moonshot AI52.1/1003 independent benchmarks$0.35 per solved task
Shared results
86
GLM 5.1 only
3
Kimi K2.6 only
23
Like-for-like categories
8 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 5.1 49.2 from 3 benchmarks, Kimi K2.6 52.1 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Math, 6.2 points apart on average over 5 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3: GLM 5.1 36.8% against Kimi K2.6 57.2%, 20.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 5.1 $4.40 against Kimi K2.6 $4.00 per million output tokens, 1.1x apart.
Context window
GLM 5.1 takes 205K tokens, Kimi K2.6 262K.

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 5.1BarsKimi K2.6Ties
Coding4111 tie
Intelligence02
Agentic work95
Reasoning251 tie
Math14
Knowledge56
Web design62
General148
All shared boards41432 ties
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index411
Coding benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Kimi K2.6Leader
LMArena WebDev15081509Kimi K2.6
AA Coding Index55.861.8Kimi K2.6
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)81.4%86.8%Kimi K2.6
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)76.4%76.2%GLM 5.1
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)31.5%37.9%Kimi K2.6
Code migration (Vals AI)25.8%27.8%Kimi K2.6
ProgramBench (Vals AI)0.0%0.0%Tie
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)56.9%53.6%GLM 5.1
SciCode44.8%51.5%Kimi K2.6
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)43.2%43.9%Kimi K2.6
WeirdML57.1%55.9%GLM 5.1
ALE-Bench887.11092.7Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: coding14851489Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: software and IT14841484Kimi K2.6
LMArena WebDev: React15051505Kimi K2.6
LMArena WebDev: HTML15081485GLM 5.1
LMArena WebDev: from an imageNot measured1521Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Kimi K2.6Leader
AA Intelligence Index26.127.0Kimi K2.6
Epoch Capabilities Index149.8150.9Kimi K2.6
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index95
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Kimi K2.6Leader
AA Agentic Index23.920.5GLM 5.1
Design Arena: agents building web apps11751268Kimi K2.6
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps11671155GLM 5.1
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps11621156GLM 5.1
Design Arena: agents building Android apps11821161GLM 5.1
Design Arena: agents building Godot games10531120Kimi K2.6
Design Arena: agents building games11641141GLM 5.1
Design Arena: HTML slides11201135Kimi K2.6
Design Arena: PowerPoint slides11631103GLM 5.1
Design Arena: spreadsheets13151276GLM 5.1
Finance Agent (Vals AI)44.8%44.9%Kimi K2.6
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured12.4%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)27.9%15.9%GLM 5.1
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured57.9%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom97.7%95.9%GLM 5.1
APEX-Agents40.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
OSWorld 2.0Not measured4.6%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Vending-Bench 2$5,634$6,205Kimi K2.6
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index25
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Kimi K2.6Leader
GPQA Diamond84.5%89.1%Kimi K2.6
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured86.3%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)86.8%91.1%Kimi K2.6
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)30.1%37.5%Kimi K2.6
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)89.9%90.8%Kimi K2.6
SimpleBench55.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Chess puzzles20.0%20.0%Tie
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured18.0%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
EBR-benchNot measured2.4%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14731470GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: expert14781491Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14821471GLM 5.1
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1298Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1310Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index14
Math benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Kimi K2.6Leader
AIME91.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
OTIS Mock AIME93.3%96.1%Kimi K2.6
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 336.8%57.2%Kimi K2.6
FrontierMath, tier 4Not measured25.6%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
ProofBench22.2%16.0%GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: math14731474Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: mathematical work14701480Kimi K2.6
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index56
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Kimi K2.6Leader
MMLU Pro86.9%87.6%Kimi K2.6
LegalBench (Vals AI)84.4%84.7%Kimi K2.6
CaseLaw (Vals AI)51.5%61.2%Kimi K2.6
CorpFin (Vals AI)64.5%66.7%Kimi K2.6
TaxEval (Vals AI)71.2%74.7%Kimi K2.6
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured65.8%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)41.6%40.1%GLM 5.1
SimpleQA Verified34.0%34.9%Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: science14781468GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14741457GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: legal and government14651462GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: business and finance14521445GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index62
Web design benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Kimi K2.6Leader
Design Arena: websites12901268GLM 5.1
Design Arena: UI components12921263GLM 5.1
Design Arena: game dev12651250GLM 5.1
Design Arena: data viz13661249GLM 5.1
Design Arena: 3D13361267GLM 5.1
Design Arena: all code categories12681271Kimi K2.6
Design Arena: SVG12181181GLM 5.1
Design Arena: ASCII art11411165Kimi K2.6
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index148
General benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Kimi K2.6Leader
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)61.8%56.6%GLM 5.1
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured50.2%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)72.3%78.2%Kimi K2.6
Vals Multimodal IndexNot measured56.4%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
IFBench76.3%76.0%GLM 5.1
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)73.7%81.0%Kimi K2.6
DTBenchNot measured90.9%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMCANot measured37.3%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Furniture assemblyNot measured21.7%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
ExploitBench18.1%18.4%Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text14631455GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: instruction following14531451GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: creative writing14531434GLM 5.1
LMArena VisionNot measured1282Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Text: English14761460GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: non-English14481446GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Chinese15151520Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: German14671451GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Japanese14351443Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: Korean14241427Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: French14701471Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: Spanish14681464GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Russian14541446GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Polish14491438GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: multi-turn14731453GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: longer queries14671468Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: writing and language14541439GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14421428GLM 5.1
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1287Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1346Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1291Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1280Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1273Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena DocumentNot measured1451Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Kimi K2.6Leader
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 5.1$0.0036Fits in one request
Kimi K2.6$0.0029Fits in one request

Kimi K2.6 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 5.1$0.083Fits in one request
Kimi K2.6$0.059Fits in one request

Kimi K2.6 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 5.1$0.324Exceeds the context window
Kimi K2.6$0.230Fits in one request

Kimi K2.6 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 5.1 and Kimi K2.6
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 5.1MoonshotAI Kimi K2.6
MakerZ.aiMoonshot AI
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedApril 7, 2026April 20, 2026
Context window205K262K
Input $/Mtok$1.40$0.95
Output $/Mtok$4.40$4.00
Coding index49.252.1
Independent measurements behind it33
Cost per solved task$0.60$0.35
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 5.1 better than Kimi K2.6 for coding?

Pick Kimi K2.6 for coding: it scores 52.1 on the Vibe Coding Index against 49.2 for GLM 5.1. Pick GLM 5.1 for work measured by SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) or Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI), where it leads.

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

GLM 5.1 costs $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Kimi K2.6 costs $0.95 and $4.00. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, GLM 5.1 costs $0.60 and Kimi K2.6 $0.35.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5.1 or Kimi K2.6?

Kimi K2.6, with 262K tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 5.1 vs Kimi K2.6 comparison based on?

86 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GLM 5.1's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and Kimi K2.6's on 3. 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-5-1-vs-kimi-k2-6" title="GLM 5.1 vs Kimi K2.6, 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-5-1-vs-kimi-k2-6">LLMBenchmark.ai, GLM 5.1 vs Kimi K2.6</a></p>