新帳號 免費註冊,送 10 次呼叫,最高 $1,免綁卡。

GLM-5.2 vs Kimi K3

vs

什麼情況選哪一個

兩者上下文都約一百萬 token(glm-5.2 為 1000000,kimi-k3 為 1048576),所以真正的分野是價格、模態和輸出長度:glm-5.2 是文字進、文字出,$1.4 輸入、$4.4 輸出;kimi-k3 則是 $3 和 $15,輸入貴約 2.1 倍、輸出貴 3.4 倍。需要圖像或影片輸入,或回覆遠超 glm-5.2 的 131072 token 上限時選 kimi-k3,它最多可輸出 1048576 token。大批量文字、程式碼和工具工作選 glm-5.2,尤其因為它的推理可以關閉,而 kimi-k3 不允許。

Benchmark 成績

領先高於平均沒有模型更高GLM-5.2025 / 801 / 80Kimi K34352 / 6712 / 67

兩邊都有成績的有 43 項。

GLM-5.2 Kimi K3 其他有成績的模型 其他模型平均 ★ 沒有模型分數更高
DeepSWE 1.1
46.2%
67.5%
OSWorld-Verified
N/A
84.8%
Cybergym
77.2%
80%
Finance Agent v2
49.7%
54.4%
Harvey Lab-AA
91%
沒有模型分數更高 94.6%
GPQA Diamond
91.2%
93.5%
Agents' Last Exam
23.8%
27.6%
Video-MME (w. sub)
N/A
沒有模型分數更高 90%

供應商公布: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai

定價

GLM-5.2 Kimi K3 Δ
輸入 / 1M tokens $1.4 $3 0.47×
輸出 / 1M tokens $4.4 $15 0.29×
快取讀取 / 1M tokens $0.26 $0.3 0.87×

費率取自網站建置時的即時目錄;各模型頁面都列有最新的價目。

兩者的相對位置:每 1M tokens 的輸入價格,涵蓋同一計費單位下全部 76 個聊天模型(對數尺度)

GLM-5.2 · $1.4 Kimi K3 · $3
$0.05 · Qwen3 VL Flash $30 · GPT-5.4 Pro

功能

GLM-5.2 Kimi K3
工具使用 是 是
思考控制 可設定 一律開啟
結構化輸出 是 是
提示詞快取 隱式(自動) 隱式(自動)
快取存活時間 未公布 未公布
最小快取前綴 未公布 未公布

規格

GLM-5.2 Kimi K3
輸入模態 文字 文字 圖像 影片
輸出模態 文字 文字
發布日期 2026-06-16 2026-07-16
上下文視窗 1M 1M
最大輸出 131K 1M
思考參數
  • thinking.type
  • reasoning_effort
reasoning_effort (top-level; the thinking object is not accepted)
可接受的值
thinking.type
  • enabled
  • disabled
reasoning_effort
  • none
  • minimal
  • low
  • medium
  • high
  • xhigh
  • max (none and minimal skip thinking, low and medium map to high, xhigh maps to max)
reasoning_effort
  • low
  • high
  • max
預設值 enabled, with reasoning_effort at max: the only GLM with an effort dial, and it defaults to the top of it max

規格摘錄自各供應商的文件;供應商沒有公布的項目就直接略過,不自行推測。 完整來源: GLM-5.2 · Kimi K3

同一段提示詞,兩個模型,經閘道實測

提示詞 Explain to a CFO, in exactly three sentences, why our LLM bill doubled after we enabled reasoning. 檢查 恰好 3 句

GLM-5.2 通過 · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning means the LLM now generates thousands of invisible "thinking" tokens to systematically work through complex problems before producing a final answer. Because our cloud providers bill for these internal processing steps at the same rate as standard output, our billable token volume per query has doubled. While this increases our direct API costs, it drastically reduces error rates and manual review labor, ultimately lowering our total cost per resolved transaction.

輸出 1223 tok (+1138 思考) 延遲 17.1 s

Kimi K3 通過 · 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.

輸出 755 tok (+637 思考) 延遲 20.8 s

是否照指令做(剛好三句,數得出來)、語氣是否貼合對象(寫給 CFO 看),以及下方 token 計量顯示出的隱藏思考計費落差。

提示詞 This function is supposed to return the longest run of consecutive equal items, but callers report it is off by one on single-element inputs and misses runs that end at the last index. Fix it and explain the bug in one paragraph. 檢查 修正後通過測試

GLM-5.2 未通過 · 1/8 cases (fails [1])

```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 […]

輸出 4097 tok (+4036 思考) 延遲 58.4 s

Kimi K3 通過 · 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. […]

輸出 1837 tok (+1547 思考) 延遲 47.2 s

修正是否真的正確(跑得起來)、說明的資訊密度,以及在範圍明確的任務上的 token 效率。

提示詞 Extract a JSON object with fields {company, quarter, revenue_usd_m, growth_pct, guidance} from this text. Use null for anything not stated; add no other fields. 檢查 有效的 JSON,完全符合 schema

GLM-5.2 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld"

```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": "withheld" } ```

輸出 1947 tok (+1893 思考) 延遲 30.9 s

Kimi K3 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance null

{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null }

輸出 924 tok (+863 思考) 延遲 25.9 s

是否遵守 schema(不自創欄位)、面對幻覺誘因的表現(題目明確不給 guidance),以及結構化輸出路徑的差異。

提示詞 Write a 120-word product announcement for an API gateway feature that caches prompts across providers. Forbidden words: "seamless", "unlock", "game-changer", "revolutionize", "empower". Exactly one sentence must be a question. 檢查 120 詞,0 個禁用詞

GLM-5.2 通過 · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question

We are introducing Caching for our API Gateway, the smartest way to optimize your workflows. Why pay for the exact same response twice? Now, you can automatically store and reuse prompt results across multiple AI providers, drastically reducing latency and overall operational costs. If a user submits a duplicate query, the gateway serves the cached answer instantly, regardless of whether you route to OpenAI, Anthropic, or others. This directly translates to faster applications and significantly lower monthly API bills. You can easily configure your specific caching rules within the developer dashboard and watch your efficiency soar. Stop wasting your valuable tokens on completely redundant computations. Upgrade to the latest gateway version today and experience the future of intelligent prompt management.

輸出 11125 tok (+10984 思考) 延遲 114.8 s

Kimi K3 通過 · 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.

輸出 1527 tok (+1354 思考) 延遲 37.9 s

是否遵守限制(字數上限、禁用詞清單、只能有一句問句)、文字風格的特徵,以及長度控制。

改一行程式碼就能在兩者之間切換

下面每個頁籤都列了這兩個模型 ID,要改的只有醒目標示的那兩行。端點、金鑰和請求格式都不變。

from openai import OpenAI

client = OpenAI(
    base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
    api_key="sk-syn-...",
)

resp = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="glm-5.2",
    # model="kimi-k3",  # 取消這一行的註解,並把上一行註解掉
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
    reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)

取得 API 金鑰 →

常見問題

GLM-5.2 和 Kimi K3 哪個比較便宜?

以「輸入 / 1M tokens」來看,GLM-5.2 比較便宜($1.4 對 $3,相差 2.1×)。其他項目的結果可能相反,完整價目請看上表;實際成本要看你的用量組合。

可以只串接一次,就對 GLM-5.2 和 Kimi K3 做 A/B 測試嗎?

可以。兩個模型都走同一個 OpenAI 相容端點,用的也是同一把 API 金鑰,切換時只要改一行裡的模型名稱字串。你可以把一部分流量分別導到兩邊,再直接比較帳單。

GLM-5.2 與 Kimi K3 支援提示詞快取嗎?

支援。兩者的快取讀取費率都低於輸入費率,所以前綴已經進快取的工作負載,實際成本會比官網價算出來的低。確切的快取讀取價格請見上方定價表。

相關比較