新人 免费注册,送 10 次调用,最高 $1,无需绑卡。

GLM-5.2 vs Kimi K3

vs

什么时候选哪个

两者上下文都约一百万 token(glm-5.2 为 1000000,kimi-k3 为 1048576),所以真正的分野是价格、模态和输出长度:glm-5.2 是文本进、文本出,$1.4 输入、$4.4 输出;kimi-k3 则是 $3 和 $15,输入贵约 2.1 倍、输出贵 3.4 倍。需要图像或视频输入,或回复远超 glm-5.2 的 131072 token 上限时选 kimi-k3,它最多可输出 1048576 token。大批量文本、代码和工具工作选 glm-5.2,尤其因为它的推理可以关闭,而 kimi-k3 不允许。

Benchmark 成绩

领先高于同类均值无更高分GLM-5.2025 / 801 / 80Kimi K34352 / 6712 / 67

43 项两边都有成绩。

GLM-5.2 Kimi K3 其他参测模型 同类均值 ★ 没有模型得分更高
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%
没有模型得分更高 94.6%
GPQA Diamond
91.2%
93.5%
Agents' Last Exam
23.8%
27.6%
Video-MME (w. sub)
N/A
没有模型得分更高 90%

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

价格

GLM-5.2 Kimi K3 Δ
输入 / 1M token $1.4 $3 0.47×
输出 / 1M token $4.4 $15 0.29×
缓存读取 / 1M token $0.26 $0.3 0.87×

价格取自构建时的实时目录,最新价格见各模型页面。

两个模型所处的位置:全部 76 个按同一单位计费的聊天模型的每 1M token 输入价分布(对数刻度)

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

能力

GLM-5.2 Kimi K3
工具调用 是 是
思考控制 可配置 始终开启
结构化输出 是 是
提示词缓存 隐式(自动) 隐式(自动)
缓存有效期 未公布 未公布
最小缓存前缀 未公布 未公布

规格

GLM-5.2 Kimi K3
输入模态 文本 文本 图像 视频
输出模态 文本 文本
发布日期 2026-06-16 2026-07-16
上下文窗口 1M 1M
最大输出 131K 1M
思考参数
  • thinking.type
  • reasoning_effort
reasoning_effort (top-level; the thinking object is not accepted)
可选值
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
默认值 enabled, with reasoning_effort at max: the only GLM with an effort dial, and it defaults to the top of it max

规格照录自各供应商的文档;供应商没有公布的项目,对应的行直接省略,不做推断。 完整来源: GLM-5.2 · Kimi K3

同一条提示词,两个模型,经网关实测

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

GLM-5.2 通过 · 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.

输出 1223 tok (+1138 思考) 延迟 17.1 s

Kimi K3 通过 · 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.

输出 755 tok (+637 思考) 延迟 20.8 s

指令遵循(恰好三句,数得出来)、受众适配(对 CFO 说话的口吻),以及下方 token 计数暴露出的隐藏思考计费差额。

提示词 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. 检查 修复通过测试

GLM-5.2 未通过 · 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 […]

输出 4097 tok (+4036 思考) 延迟 58.4 s

Kimi K3 通过 · 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. […]

输出 1837 tok (+1547 思考) 延迟 47.2 s

修复是否真的正确(能运行)、解释的信息密度,以及在一个范围明确的任务上的 token 效率。

提示词 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. 检查 合法 JSON,严格符合 schema

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

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

输出 1947 tok (+1893 思考) 延迟 30.9 s

Kimi K3 通过 · 5/5 fields, guidance null

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

输出 924 tok (+863 思考) 延迟 25.9 s

是否严守 schema(不臆造字段)、能否顶住幻觉压力(原文明说暂不给出 guidance),以及结构化输出路径的差异。

提示词 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. 检查 120 词,0 个禁用词

GLM-5.2 通过 · 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.

输出 11125 tok (+10984 思考) 延迟 114.8 s

Kimi K3 通过 · 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.

输出 1527 tok (+1354 思考) 延迟 37.9 s

是否守住约束(字数预算、禁用词表、只能有一个问句)、文风特征,以及长度控制。

改一行代码就能在两个模型之间切换

下方每个标签页里都有两个模型 ID,高亮的那两行是唯一要改的地方。端点不变,API key 不变,请求结构也不变。

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",  # 取消注释此行,注释上一行
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
    reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)

获取 API key →

常见问题

GLM-5.2 和 Kimi K3 哪个更便宜?

按「输入 / 1M token」算,GLM-5.2 更便宜($1.4 对 $3,相差 2.1×)。其他计费项的结论可能相反,完整价格见上方表格,实际成本取决于你的用量构成。

不用分别集成两次,就能对 GLM-5.2 和 Kimi K3 做 A/B 测试吗?

可以。两个模型走同一个 OpenAI 兼容端点,用同一个 API key,切换时只要改一行里的模型名,所以可以给两个模型各分一部分流量,直接对比账单。

GLM-5.2 和 Kimi K3 支持提示词缓存吗?

支持。两个模型的缓存读取价都低于各自的输入价,所以前缀能反复命中缓存的负载,实际成本会比按官网价估算的低。具体的缓存读取价见上方价格表。

相关对比

我们的实测研究