GLM-5.3 vs Kimi K2.7 Code
什么时候选哪个
两者均为思考始终开启的文本输出推理兼工具模型，因此区别在于上下文与输入对比：glm-5.3 拥有 1000000 token 窗口和最高 131072 token 输出，大约是 kimi-k2.7-code（256000 和 32768）的 3.9x 上下文和 4x 最大输出。对于庞大的代码库、冗长的转录文本或任何必须在单次调用中容纳一个巨大提示词或极长生成的任务，请选择 glm-5.3；当你需要图像或视频输入，或者当提示词体量占主导地位时，请选择发布于 2026-06 的 kimi-k2.7-code，因为其 $0.95 的输入和 $0.19 的缓存读取比 glm-5.3 的 $1.4 和 $0.28 便宜约 1.5x，而输出仅为 $4 对 $4.4。
Benchmark 成绩
供应商公布： Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
价格
| GLM-5.3 | Kimi K2.7 Code | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 输入 / 1M token | $1.4 | $0.95 | 1.5× |
| 输出 / 1M token | $4.4 | $4 | 1.1× |
| 缓存读取 / 1M token | $0.28 | $0.19 | 1.5× |
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 | 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 | Kimi K2.7 Code | |
|---|---|---|
| 输入模态 | 文本 | 文本 图像 视频 |
| 输出模态 | 文本 | 文本 |
| 发布日期 | 2026-08-14 | 2026-06 |
| 上下文窗口 | 1M | 256K |
| 最大输出 | 131K | 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 · Kimi K2.7 Code
同一条提示词，两个模型，经网关实测
GLM-5.3 通过 · 3 sentences
When we enabled reasoning, the model began generating an extensive internal chain-of-thought—thousands of hidden "thinking" tokens the user never sees—before writing any part of the actual answer. Those invisible tokens are billed at output rates, which run several times the price of input tokens, so the billed volume per query jumped even though query volume and per-token pricing stayed the same. The good news is this is a controllable lever, not a rate increase: capping reasoning effort and routing only complex queries to reasoning mode should bring a large share of the added cost back down.
输出 681 tok (+562 思考) 延迟 18.4 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 通过 · 8/8 cases
**Fixed:** ```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:** The function suffers from a unit error — it counts adjacent equal *pairs* rather than *items* in a run. `cur` is seeded at 0, gains 1 per match, and resets to 0 on a mismatch, so a run of k equal elements can only ever drive `cur` to k−1 (a run of k items contains exactly k−1 neighboring pairs), and `best`, also starting at 0, inherits that shortfall. That's why a single-element input — a run of length 1 containing zero pairs — returns 0 instead of 1, and why a run reaching the last index comes back one short (e.g. […]
输出 9934 tok (+9438 思考) 延迟 150.7 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 通过 · 5/5 fields, guidance null
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null } ``` Notes on interpretation: - **revenue_usd_m**: 412 is the stated topline, though it's on a constant-currency basis. - **growth_pct**: "eleven and change" is extracted as 11 (an approximation, slightly above 11). - **guidance**: null, since formal guidance was explicitly withheld pending the Q4 close.
输出 2173 tok (+2045 思考) 延迟 35.8 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 通过 · 129 words, 0 banned, 1 question
**Introducing Universal Prompt Caching** We're thrilled to announce prompt caching that works across every major LLM provider. Identical prompts are now cached once at the gateway level, regardless of which model or vendor serves the request downstream. That means up to 90% savings on token costs and dramatically faster responses for repeated queries. How does it work? Our gateway computes a deterministic hash of each incoming prompt, checks the shared cache layer, and returns instant responses when matches exist. New or modified prompts route normally to your configured provider. Deploy with a single configuration flag; no code changes required. Cache invalidation, TTL controls, and detailed analytics are included. Stop paying twice for the same question. Enable Universal Prompt Caching today. --- *Exactly 120 words; one question; no forbidden terms.*
输出 5418 tok (+5255 思考) 延迟 52.4 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",
# 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",
// 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",
# "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",
// 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")
// .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 和 Kimi K2.7 Code 哪个更便宜？
按「输入 / 1M token」算，Kimi K2.7 Code 更便宜（$0.95 对 $1.4，相差 1.5×）。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 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 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。