GLM-5.1 vs Kimi K3
Which one, when
glm-5.1 is the cheaper text-only option, at $1.4 per million input and $4.4 output versus $3 and $15 for kimi-k3 - roughly 2.1x less on input and 3.4x less on output - and it lets you turn thinking off, which kimi-k3 does not. Pick kimi-k3 when you need image or video input, or when the job genuinely exceeds glm-5.1's 200000-token context and 131072-token output ceiling, since it accepts and emits up to 1048576 tokens. Cache reads are close either way ($0.26 versus $0.3), so for repeated text prompts within 200k the cost gap comes mostly from fresh input and generation.
Benchmarks
GLM-5.1: the vendor has not published benchmark scores.
Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
Pricing
| GLM-5.1 | Kimi K3 | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $1.4 | $3 | 0.47× |
| Output / 1M tokens | $4.4 | $15 | 0.29× |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | $0.26 | $0.3 | 0.87× |
Rates from the live catalogue at build time; each model page carries the current rate card.
Where they sit · input price per 1M tokens across all 76 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)
Capabilities
Specs
| GLM-5.1 | Kimi K3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Input modalities | text | text image video |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | 2026-04-07 | 2026-07-16 |
| Context window | 200K | 1M |
| Max output | 131K | 1M |
| Thinking parameter | thinking.type | reasoning_effort (top-level; the thinking object is not accepted) |
| Accepted values | thinking.type
| reasoning_effort
|
| Default | enabled, and the model automatically determines whether to think | max |
Specs are transcribed from each vendor’s documentation; a row a vendor does not publish is left out rather than inferred. Full sources: GLM-5.1 · Kimi K3
One prompt, both models, measured through the gateway
GLM-5.1 passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning shifts the LLM from generating quick answers to producing hidden "chain-of-thought" tokens that systematically explore multiple solution paths before responding. Because billing is based on total tokens processed, these invisible reasoning tokens drastically increase input and output volume per query, often adding thousands of compute-intensive tokens to a single prompt. Consequently, our bill doubled not from higher per-token rates or increased user volume, but from the exponentially deeper computational work required to deliver higher-quality, more reliable outputs.
out 98 tok latency 7.8 s
Kimi K3 passed · 3 sentences
Reasoning models don't just answer questions—they "think" first, generating long internal chains of step-by-step logic before producing a response. Those hidden thinking steps are billed as output tokens (the most expensive kind, typically 3–5x the price of input tokens), and a single query can generate thousands of them even when the visible answer is only a paragraph long. So you're paying for dramatically more compute per request: the bill doubled because the model does far more work behind the scenes, not because usage increased.
out 755 tok (+637 thinking) latency 20.8 s
Instruction following (exactly three sentences, so countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.
GLM-5.1 passed · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 best = max(best, cur) else: cur = 1 return best ``` **Explanation:** The original function initialized `cur` and `best` to `0` and only incremented `cur` when a duplicate was found. This counts the number of *extra* equal items in a run rather than the total run length, so every run is reported as one shorter than it actually is—returning `0` for single-element lists and `L-1` for a run of length `L` (including those ending at the last index). The fix initializes `cur` and `best` to `1` (when the list is non‑empty) and resets `cur` to `1` on a mismatch, so `cur` tracks the full length of the current run and `best` records the true maximum.
out 3823 tok (+3585 thinking) latency 49.7 s
Kimi K3 passed · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 best = max(best, cur) else: cur = 1 return best ``` The bug is a fencepost error: `cur` counts *matching adjacent pairs* rather than *items in the run*, because it starts at 0 and only increments when `xs[i] == xs[i - 1]`. A run of length L contains L−1 equal pairs, so every run was undercounted by exactly one. For a single-element list (a run of length 1) the loop never runs and the function returns 0 instead of 1; likewise any run ending at the last index — e.g. the two `2`s in `[1, 2, 2]` — reported 1 instead of 2, making it look like no run existed at all. […]
out 1837 tok (+1547 thinking) latency 47.2 s
Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.
GLM-5.1 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld pending the Q4 close"
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": "eleven and change", "guidance": "withheld pending the Q4 close" } ```
out 1091 tok (+1028 thinking) latency 15.2 s
Kimi K3 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null
{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null }
out 924 tok (+863 thinking) latency 25.9 s
Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.
GLM-5.1 passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
We are excited to introduce Prompt Cache for our API Gateway. This new feature stores responses for identical prompts, routing subsequent requests directly to the cache instead of calling the underlying AI provider. Are you tired of paying multiple times for the exact same query? Prompt Cache solves this by recognizing duplicate inputs across all supported providers, drastically reducing latency and operational costs. When a user submits a request that matches a previously cached prompt, the gateway returns the stored answer instantly. You can configure cache expiration and scope rules via your dashboard to maintain data freshness. Stop wasting budget on redundant computational work. Upgrade to the latest gateway tier today to start saving time and money on every call.
out 3935 tok (+3802 thinking) latency 41.1 s
Kimi K3 passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Meet Prompt Cache, a new API gateway capability that stores prompt responses and serves them across OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Azure endpoints. It matches requests by model, prompt hash, tools, temperature, and tenant policy, so repeated work returns fast while sensitive contexts stay isolated. Teams set TTLs, stale rules, encryption scopes, and bypass flags per route. Analytics show hit rate, latency saved, token spend avoided, and drift risk by provider. What changes for developers? Keep one integration, add cache headers, and watch fallback logic respect consent, residency, and audit needs. During rollout, canary keys compare fresh answers with cached copies before promotion. Prompt Cache cuts vendor calls, steadies p95 latency, and gives platform owners controls for cost, quality, and compliance.
out 1527 tok (+1354 thinking) latency 37.9 s
Constraint obedience (word budget, banned-word list, the single question), style fingerprint, and length control.
Switch between them with one line
Both ids are in every tab below; the highlighted pair of lines is the only edit. Same endpoint, same key, same request shape.
from openai import OpenAI
client = OpenAI(
base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
api_key="sk-syn-...",
)
resp = client.chat.completions.create(
model="glm-5.1",
# model="kimi-k3", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)import OpenAI from "openai";
const client = new OpenAI({
baseURL: "https://synthorai.io/v1",
apiKey: "sk-syn-...",
});
const resp = await client.chat.completions.create({
model: "glm-5.1",
// model: "kimi-k3", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages: [{ role: "user", content: "Summarize this diff" }],
reasoning_effort: "medium",
});
console.log(resp.choices[0].message.content);curl https://synthorai.io/v1/chat/completions \
-H "Authorization: Bearer sk-syn-..." \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"model": "glm-5.1",
# "model": "kimi-k3", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}],
"reasoning_effort": "medium"
}'package main
import (
"context"
"fmt"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3/option"
)
func main() {
client := openai.NewClient(
option.WithBaseURL("https://synthorai.io/v1"),
option.WithAPIKey("sk-syn-..."),
)
resp, _ := client.Chat.Completions.New(context.TODO(), openai.ChatCompletionNewParams{
Model: "glm-5.1",
// Model: "kimi-k3", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
Messages: []openai.ChatCompletionMessageParamUnion{
openai.UserMessage("Summarize this diff"),
},
ReasoningEffort: openai.ReasoningEffortMedium,
})
fmt.Println(resp.Choices[0].Message.Content)
}import com.openai.client.OpenAIClient;
import com.openai.client.okhttp.OpenAIOkHttpClient;
import com.openai.models.chat.completions.*;
import com.openai.models.ReasoningEffort;
OpenAIClient client = OpenAIOkHttpClient.builder()
.baseUrl("https://synthorai.io/v1")
.apiKey("sk-syn-...")
.build();
ChatCompletion resp = client.chat().completions().create(
ChatCompletionCreateParams.builder()
.model("glm-5.1")
// .model("kimi-k3") // uncomment this line, comment the one above
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));FAQ
Which is cheaper, GLM-5.1 or Kimi K3?
GLM-5.1 is cheaper on the "Input / 1M tokens" row ($1.4 vs $3, 2.1× apart). Other rows may point the other way; the table above carries the full rate card, and real cost depends on your mix.
Can I A/B test GLM-5.1 against Kimi K3 without two integrations?
Yes. Both are served through the same OpenAI-compatible endpoint with one API key. Switching is a one-line change to the model id, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.
Do GLM-5.1 and Kimi K3 support prompt caching?
Yes. Both bill cache reads below their input rate, so warm-prefix workloads cost less than the list rates suggest. The exact cache-read rows are in the pricing table above.