Compare/GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) vs Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning)

GLM-5.1 (Reasoning)vsKimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning)

Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.

Z AI

GLM-5.1 (Reasoning)

Input
$1.28/M
Output
$4.07/M
Speed
51 tok/s
TTFT
1.82s
Kimi

Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning)

Input
$0.95/M
Output
$4/M
Speed
42 tok/s
TTFT
2.87s

Winner by Category

Cheaper
Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning)
Faster (tok/s)
GLM-5.1 (Reasoning)
Lower Latency
GLM-5.1 (Reasoning)
Benchmarks (2-0)
GLM-5.1 (Reasoning)

Pricing Comparison

MetricGLM-5.1 (Reasoning)Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning)
Input ($/M tokens)$1.28$0.95
Output ($/M tokens)$4.07$4
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
GLM-5.1 (Reasoning)$1.69
Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning)$1.35

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
GLM-5.1 (Reasoning)
51 tok/s
Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning)
42 tok/s
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
GLM-5.1 (Reasoning)
1.82s
Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning)
2.87s

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) wins the overall benchmark matchup 2–0 across 2 overlapping categories, but raw benchmark score is only one input to the decision.

Pricing. Both models sit in the mid-tier bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.0× the per-million-token cost, Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning) is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning) makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.

Strengths. GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) is strongest on Coding Index (55.8), Intelligence Index (41.0). Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning) leads on Intelligence Index (35.4).

Speed. Throughput is comparable — 51 tok/s vs 42 tok/s — so generation speed shouldn't drive your choice here. Look at the per-benchmark wins instead.

Provider. Z AI and Kimi sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Z AI tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Kimi often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.

Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) costs $99.45 ($1193/year); Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning) costs $88.50 ($1062/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) ≈ $14.54/run, Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning) ≈ $12.75/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) ≈ $663/run, Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning) ≈ $590/run. Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning) becomes more attractive at higher volume — the absolute per-token pricing difference compounds when you ship at scale.

Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
41.035.4
Coding Index
55.8
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
SciCode
IFBench
TerminalBench
GLM-5.1 (Reasoning)2 wins
0 winsKimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning)

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) or Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning)?

Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning) is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $1.71/M tokens vs $1.98/M for GLM-5.1 (Reasoning).

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) wins 2 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning). See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) generates tokens faster at 51 tok/s vs 42 tok/s. GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) also has lower time-to-first-token (1.82s vs 2.87s).

When should I use GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) vs Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning)?

Choose based on your priorities: Kimi K2.6 (Non-reasoning) for lower cost, GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) for stronger benchmark performance, and GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.