GLM-5.3-Flash vs Kimi K2.7 Code
什麼情況選哪一個
若考量流量與絕對空間，請選擇 glm-5.3-flash：其每百萬輸入費用 $0.15、每百萬輸出費用 $0.5，對比 kimi-k2.7-code 的 $0.95 與 $4，輸入大約便宜 6.3x，輸出大約便宜 8x，且具備 1000000-token context 與高達 163840 輸出 tokens，勝過後者的 256000 與 32768。兩者皆接受文字、圖片與影片輸入並回傳文字，且皆保持 thinking 常駐開啟，但只有 glm-5.3-flash 帶有 vision 功能標誌，因此當圖片或影片真正重要時，請依賴它。當你希望在較短的任務中使用 Moonshot 的聊天、程式碼、推理及工具行為時，請選擇 2026-06 較新發布的 kimi-k2.7-code。
Benchmark 成績
供應商公布： Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic DeepSeek Google Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
定價
| GLM-5.3-Flash | Kimi K2.7 Code | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 輸入 / 1M tokens | $0.15 | $0.95 | 0.16× |
| 輸出 / 1M tokens | $0.5 | $4 | 0.13× |
| 快取讀取 / 1M tokens | $0.03 | $0.19 | 0.16× |
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 79 個聊天模型（對數尺度）
功能
| GLM-5.3-Flash | Kimi K2.7 Code | |
|---|---|---|
| 工具使用 | 是 | 是 |
| 思考控制 | 一律開啟 | 一律開啟 |
| 結構化輸出 | 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-5.3-Flash | Kimi K2.7 Code | |
|---|---|---|
| 輸入模態 | 文字 圖像 影片 | 文字 圖像 影片 |
| 輸出模態 | 文字 | 文字 |
| 發布日期 | 2026-08-26 | 2026-06 |
| 上下文視窗 | 1M | 256K |
| 最大輸出 | 164K | 33K |
| 思考參數 | reasoning_effort |
|
| 可接受的值 | reasoning_effort
| type
keep
|
| 預設值 | max | thinking on with Preserved Thinking on |
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-5.3-Flash · Kimi K2.7 Code
同一段提示詞，兩個模型，經閘道實測
GLM-5.3-Flash 通過 · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning means the model now generates thousands of invisible "thinking" tokens before each visible answer, and we're billed for those hidden tokens at full output rates—our most expensive tier. Since output tokens cost 3–5x more than input tokens, that hidden thinking volume compounds across every request, which is why the bill doubled rather than edged up. If the spend concerns you, the fix is straightforward: route only complex queries to reasoning models and keep simple tasks on standard ones, which can reclaim a meaningful share of that cost without losing accuracy where it matters.
輸出 742 tok (+626 思考) 延遲 23.2 s
Kimi K2.7 Code 通過 · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning mode causes the model to generate an internal chain-of-thought before producing each answer, and that hidden reasoning text is billed like any other output. Those extra reasoning tokens typically add up to much more than the final response itself, so every API call now costs significantly more than before. Because our overall usage volume did not change, the doubled bill reflects that each query consumes roughly twice as many billable tokens.
輸出 259 tok (+174 思考) 延遲 5.4 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。
GLM-5.3-Flash 通過 · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 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:** `cur` is supposed to hold the length of the current run, but it's seeded with `0` and reset to `0` on a mismatch instead of `1` — and since the loop starts at index 1, the first element of every run never passes through the `==` branch and so never gets counted at all. That means `cur` actually holds *run length minus 1* for every run, so every run is underreported by one: a single-element input never enters the loop and returns 0 instead of 1, and a run of length n returns n − 1 (e.g., `[3, 3, 3]` returns 2). […]
輸出 2462 tok (+2138 思考) 延遲 29.1 s
Kimi K2.7 Code 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 that the function counts *transitions* between equal neighbors instead of counting the items themselves, so a single-element list never enters the loop and returns `0` instead of `1`. Likewise, resetting `cur` to `0` on a mismatch forgets the current item that starts a new run, which causes runs that end at the last index to be undercounted. Initializing both `best` and `cur` to `1` and resetting `cur` to `1` fixes both issues.
輸出 410 tok (+222 思考) 延遲 9.4 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。
GLM-5.3-Flash 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance "Withheld pending the Q4 close"
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": "Withheld pending the Q4 close" } ``` Notes on judgment calls: revenue of 412 is on a constant-currency basis as stated; growth of "eleven and change" is approximated as 11 since no precise figure is given.
輸出 717 tok (+616 思考) 延遲 9.1 s
Kimi K2.7 Code 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld pending the Q4 close"
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": "withheld pending the Q4 close" } ```
輸出 721 tok (+663 思考) 延遲 13.2 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。
GLM-5.3-Flash 通過 · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Cache, the newest feature in our API gateway. Today, teams send identical prompts to multiple LLM providers and pay full price each time. Why duplicate that work and cost? With Cross-Provider Prompt Cache, your gateway stores prompt-response pairs and serves repeated requests from cache, regardless of which provider handles the call. The result: lower latency, reduced spend, and consistent outputs across OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and self-hosted models. Configure cache policies per route, set TTLs, and invalidate entries instantly through the dashboard or API. Built-in analytics show hit rates and savings in real time. Enable the cache with a single flag, no code changes required. Available today on all paid plans. Contact sales for enterprise volume pricing details.
輸出 2095 tok (+1937 思考) 延遲 20.2 s
Kimi K2.7 Code 通過 · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
We're introducing Prompt Cache for our API Gateway, a new capability that stores prompt responses across multiple AI providers. By caching replies, you reduce redundant calls, lower latency, and cut costs without changing how you build. Teams using several model providers can now reuse identical prompt results instantly, keeping traffic consistent and budgets predictable. Responses are keyed by provider, model, and exact prompt, so you always get the right result. Configure TTL, hit thresholds, and eviction rules from a single dashboard. It fits into your existing routing and requires no code changes. Setup takes minutes and works with your current endpoints. Want to see how much latency and spend you can trim? Check the docs to enable Prompt Cache today.
輸出 2375 tok (+2235 思考) 延遲 38.6 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-5.3-flash",
# model="kimi-k2.7-code", # 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)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-5.3-flash",
// model: "kimi-k2.7-code", // 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",
});
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-5.3-flash",
# "model": "kimi-k2.7-code", # 取消這一行的註解，並把上一行註解掉
"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-5.3-flash",
// Model: "kimi-k2.7-code", // 取消這一行的註解，並把上一行註解掉
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-5.3-flash")
// .model("kimi-k2.7-code") // 取消這一行的註解，並把上一行註解掉
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));常見問題
GLM-5.3-Flash 和 Kimi K2.7 Code 哪個比較便宜？
以「輸入 / 1M tokens」來看，GLM-5.3-Flash 比較便宜（$0.15 對 $0.95，相差 6.3×）。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-5.3-Flash 和 Kimi K2.7 Code 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-5.3-Flash 與 Kimi K2.7 Code 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。