GLM-5.3-Flash vs Kimi K2.7 Code
什么时候选哪个
选择 glm-5.3-flash 以应对大请求量和超大空间需求:其每百万输入收费 $0.15,每百万输出收费 $0.5,而 kimi-k2.7-code 分别为 $0.95 和 $4,输入端便宜约 6.3x,输出端便宜约 8x,具有 1000000-token 的上下文和高达 163840 的输出 token,相比之下后者为 256000 和 32768。两者均支持文本、图像和视频输入并返回文本,且均保持 thinking 始终开启,但仅有 glm-5.3-flash 带有 vision 能力标志,因此当图像或视频发挥实质作用时,请倾向于使用它。当您希望在较短的任务上使用 Moonshot 的 chat、code、reasoning 和 tools 行为时,请选择 kimi-k2.7-code 这个 2026-06 的较新版本。
Benchmark 成绩
供应商公布: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic DeepSeek Google Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
价格
| GLM-5.3-Flash | Kimi K2.7 Code | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 输入 / 1M token | $0.15 | $0.95 | 0.16× |
| 输出 / 1M token | $0.5 | $4 | 0.13× |
| 缓存读取 / 1M token | $0.03 | $0.19 | 0.16× |
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 79 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)
能力
| GLM-5.3-Flash | Kimi K2.7 Code | |
|---|---|---|
| 工具调用 | 是 | 是 |
| 思考控制 | 始终开启 | 始终开启 |
| 结构化输出 | 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-5.3-Flash | Kimi K2.7 Code | |
|---|---|---|
| 输入模态 | 文本 图像 视频 | 文本 图像 视频 |
| 输出模态 | 文本 | 文本 |
| 发布日期 | 2026-08-26 | 2026-06 |
| 上下文窗口 | 1M | 256K |
| 最大输出 | 164K | 33K |
| 思考参数 | reasoning_effort |
|
| 可选值 | reasoning_effort
| type
keep
|
| 默认值 | max | thinking on with Preserved Thinking on |
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-5.3-Flash · Kimi K2.7 Code
同一条提示词,两个模型,经网关实测
GLM-5.3-Flash 通过 · 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.
输出 742 tok (+626 思考) 延迟 23.2 s
Kimi K2.7 Code 通过 · 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.
输出 259 tok (+174 思考) 延迟 5.4 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。
GLM-5.3-Flash 通过 · 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). […]
输出 2462 tok (+2138 思考) 延迟 29.1 s
Kimi K2.7 Code 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 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.
输出 410 tok (+222 思考) 延迟 9.4 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。
GLM-5.3-Flash 通过 · 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.
输出 717 tok (+616 思考) 延迟 9.1 s
Kimi K2.7 Code 通过 · 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" } ```
输出 721 tok (+663 思考) 延迟 13.2 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。
GLM-5.3-Flash 通过 · 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.
输出 2095 tok (+1937 思考) 延迟 20.2 s
Kimi K2.7 Code 通过 · 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.
输出 2375 tok (+2235 思考) 延迟 38.6 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-5.3-flash",
# model="kimi-k2.7-code", # 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)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", // 取消注释此行,注释上一行
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", # 取消注释此行,注释上一行
"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", // 取消注释此行,注释上一行
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") // 取消注释此行,注释上一行
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));常见问题
GLM-5.3-Flash 和 Kimi K2.7 Code 哪个更便宜?
按「输入 / 1M token」算,GLM-5.3-Flash 更便宜($0.15 对 $0.95,相差 6.3×)。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-5.3-Flash 和 Kimi K2.7 Code 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-5.3-Flash 和 Kimi K2.7 Code 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。