Compare/Kimi K2 vs GLM-4.6 (Reasoning)

Kimi K2vsGLM-4.6 (Reasoning)

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

Kimi

Kimi K2

Input
$0.57/M
Output
$2.3/M
Speed
41 tok/s
TTFT
1.22s
Z AI

GLM-4.6 (Reasoning)

Input
$0.55/M
Output
$2.2/M
Speed
54 tok/s
TTFT
2.39s

Winner by Category

Cheaper
GLM-4.6 (Reasoning)
Faster (tok/s)
GLM-4.6 (Reasoning)
Lower Latency
Kimi K2
Benchmarks (0-2)
GLM-4.6 (Reasoning)

Pricing Comparison

MetricKimi K2GLM-4.6 (Reasoning)
Input ($/M tokens)$0.57$0.55
Output ($/M tokens)$2.3$2.2
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
Kimi K2$0.80
GLM-4.6 (Reasoning)$0.77

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
Kimi K2
41 tok/s
GLM-4.6 (Reasoning)
54 tok/s
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
Kimi K2
1.22s
GLM-4.6 (Reasoning)
2.39s

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. GLM-4.6 (Reasoning) takes the aggregate benchmark matchup 2–0 across 2 categories. Real workloads usually care about a handful of specific tasks — see the per-benchmark table above.

Pricing. Both models sit in the budget bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.0× the per-million-token cost, GLM-4.6 (Reasoning) is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). GLM-4.6 (Reasoning) makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.

Strengths. Kimi K2 is strongest on Intelligence Index (19.7). GLM-4.6 (Reasoning) leads on Coding Index (45.8), Intelligence Index (29.3).

Speed. On throughput, GLM-4.6 (Reasoning) generates tokens at 54 tok/s versus 41 tok/s — about 25% faster. On time-to-first-token, Kimi K2 responds in 1220ms vs 2390ms, which matters most for chat-style UIs.

Provider. Kimi and Z AI sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Kimi tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Z AI 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): Kimi K2 costs $51.60 ($619/year); GLM-4.6 (Reasoning) costs $49.50 ($594/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Kimi K2 ≈ $7.45/run, GLM-4.6 (Reasoning) ≈ $7.15/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Kimi K2 ≈ $344/run, GLM-4.6 (Reasoning) ≈ $330/run. GLM-4.6 (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
19.729.3
Coding Index
45.8
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
SciCode
IFBench
TerminalBench
Kimi K20 wins
2 winsGLM-4.6 (Reasoning)

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, Kimi K2 or GLM-4.6 (Reasoning)?

GLM-4.6 (Reasoning) is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $0.96/M tokens vs $1.00/M for Kimi K2.

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

GLM-4.6 (Reasoning) wins 2 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Kimi K2. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

GLM-4.6 (Reasoning) generates tokens faster at 54 tok/s vs 41 tok/s. Kimi K2 also has lower time-to-first-token (1.22s vs 2.39s).

When should I use Kimi K2 vs GLM-4.6 (Reasoning)?

Choose based on your priorities: GLM-4.6 (Reasoning) for lower cost, GLM-4.6 (Reasoning) for stronger benchmark performance, and GLM-4.6 (Reasoning) for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.