Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 5.1 vs Kimi K2.7 Code

Kimi K2.7 Code leads GLM 5.1 on coding, 53.4 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; 46 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace GLM 5.1 Replace Kimi K2.7 Code
GLM 5.1Z.ai
Coding
49.2
Overall
57.5
Output $/M
$4.40
25
Kimi K2.7 CodeMoonshot AI
Coding
53.4
Overall
56.7
Output $/M
$4.00
20
vs boards won of 46 shared, 1 tied

GLM 5.1 or Kimi K2.7 Code: which to pick

Pick Kimi K2.7 Code for coding: it scores 53.4 on the Vibe Coding Index against 49.2 for GLM 5.1.

Pick GLM 5.1 for work measured by LMArena WebDev or Code migration (Vals AI), where it leads.

Model AGLM 5.1Z.ai49.2/1003 independent benchmarks$0.60 per solved taskModel BKimi K2.7 CodeMoonshot AI53.4/1004 independent benchmarks$0.35 per solved task
Shared results
46
GLM 5.1 only
43
Kimi K2.7 Code only
5
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 K2.7 Code 53.4 from 4 benchmarks.
Widest category
Math, 9.7 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Design Arena: data viz: GLM 5.1 1366 against Kimi K2.7 Code 1227, 17.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 5.1 $4.40 against Kimi K2.7 Code $4.00 per million output tokens, 1.1x apart.
Context window
GLM 5.1 takes 205K tokens, Kimi K2.7 Code 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 K2.7 CodeTies
Coding671 tie
Intelligence11
Agentic work84
Reasoning23
Math02
Knowledge01
Web design71
General11
All shared boards25201 tie
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index67
Coding benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Kimi K2.7 Code
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Kimi K2.7 CodeLeader
LMArena WebDev15081474GLM 5.1
AA Coding Index55.860.8Kimi K2.7 Code
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)81.4%82.0%Kimi K2.7 Code
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)76.4%78.2%Kimi K2.7 Code
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)31.5%47.2%Kimi K2.7 Code
Code migration (Vals AI)25.8%25.4%GLM 5.1
ProgramBench (Vals AI)0.0%0.0%Tie
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)56.9%67.0%Kimi K2.7 Code
SkillsBench (Vals AI)Not measured50.0%Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured
SciCode44.8%47.8%Kimi K2.7 Code
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)43.2%44.7%Kimi K2.7 Code
FrontierCodeNot measured30.1%Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured
WeirdML57.1%54.1%GLM 5.1
ALE-Bench887.1886.2GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: coding1485Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1484Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena WebDev: React15051475GLM 5.1
LMArena WebDev: HTML15081451GLM 5.1
LMArena WebDev: from an imageNot measured1513Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured
Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Kimi K2.7 Code
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Kimi K2.7 CodeLeader
AA Intelligence Index26.125.8GLM 5.1
Epoch Capabilities Index149.8150.1Kimi K2.7 Code
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index84
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Kimi K2.7 Code
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Kimi K2.7 CodeLeader
AA Agentic Index23.921.0GLM 5.1
Design Arena: agents building web apps11751176Kimi K2.7 Code
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps11671175Kimi K2.7 Code
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps11621143GLM 5.1
Design Arena: agents building Android apps11821138GLM 5.1
Design Arena: agents building Godot games10531147Kimi K2.7 Code
Design Arena: agents building games11641130GLM 5.1
Design Arena: HTML slides11201151Kimi K2.7 Code
Design Arena: PowerPoint slides11631129GLM 5.1
Design Arena: spreadsheets1315Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)44.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)27.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom97.7%90.1%GLM 5.1
APEX-Agents40.9%37.6%GLM 5.1
Vending-Bench 2$5,634$5,083GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index23
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Kimi K2.7 Code
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Kimi K2.7 CodeLeader
GPQA Diamond84.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)86.8%89.6%Kimi K2.7 Code
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)30.1%35.0%Kimi K2.7 Code
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)89.9%87.9%GLM 5.1
SimpleBench55.1%57.9%Kimi K2.7 Code
Chess puzzles20.0%14.0%GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: hard prompts1473Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: expert1478Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1482Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Math benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Kimi K2.7 Code
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Kimi K2.7 CodeLeader
AIME91.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
OTIS Mock AIME93.3%95.6%Kimi K2.7 Code
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 336.8%54.0%Kimi K2.7 Code
FrontierMath, tier 4Not measured12.2%Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured
ProofBench22.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: math1473Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1470Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Kimi K2.7 Code
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Kimi K2.7 CodeLeader
MMLU Pro86.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)84.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)51.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)64.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)71.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)41.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
SimpleQA Verified34.0%36.5%Kimi K2.7 Code
LMArena Text: science1478Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1474Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1465Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1452Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index71
Web design benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Kimi K2.7 Code
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Kimi K2.7 CodeLeader
Design Arena: websites12901263GLM 5.1
Design Arena: UI components12921255GLM 5.1
Design Arena: game dev12651220GLM 5.1
Design Arena: data viz13661227GLM 5.1
Design Arena: 3D13361240GLM 5.1
Design Arena: all code categories12681252GLM 5.1
Design Arena: SVG12181176GLM 5.1
Design Arena: ASCII art11411196Kimi K2.7 Code
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
General benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Kimi K2.7 Code
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Kimi K2.7 CodeLeader
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)61.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)72.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
IFBench76.3%63.1%GLM 5.1
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)73.7%79.3%Kimi K2.7 Code
Surface Evolver BenchNot measured48.8%Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured
ExploitBench18.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text1463Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1453Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1453Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: English1476Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: non-English1448Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1515Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: German1467Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1435Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1424Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: French1470Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1468Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: Russian1454Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: Polish1449Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1473Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1467Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1454Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1442Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 23 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 K2.7 Code
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Kimi K2.7 CodeLeader
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 K2.7 Code$0.0029Fits in one request

Kimi K2.7 Code costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 5.1$0.083Fits in one request
Kimi K2.7 Code$0.059Fits in one request

Kimi K2.7 Code costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 5.1$0.324Exceeds the context window
Kimi K2.7 Code$0.230Fits in one request

Kimi K2.7 Code 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 K2.7 Code
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 5.1MoonshotAI Kimi K2.7 Code
MakerZ.aiMoonshot AI
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedApril 7, 2026June 12, 2026
Context window205K262K
Input $/Mtok$1.40$0.95
Output $/Mtok$4.40$4.00
Coding index49.253.4
Independent measurements behind it34
Cost per solved task$0.60$0.35
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 5.1 better than Kimi K2.7 Code for coding?

Pick Kimi K2.7 Code for coding: it scores 53.4 on the Vibe Coding Index against 49.2 for GLM 5.1. Pick GLM 5.1 for work measured by LMArena WebDev or Code migration (Vals AI), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GLM 5.1 or Kimi K2.7 Code?

GLM 5.1 costs $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Kimi K2.7 Code costs $0.95 and $4.00. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, GLM 5.1 costs $0.60 and Kimi K2.7 Code $0.35.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5.1 or Kimi K2.7 Code?

Kimi K2.7 Code, with 262K tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 5.1 vs Kimi K2.7 Code comparison based on?

46 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 K2.7 Code'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-5-1-vs-kimi-k2-7-code" title="GLM 5.1 vs Kimi K2.7 Code, 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-k2-7-code">LLMBenchmark.ai, GLM 5.1 vs Kimi K2.7 Code</a></p>