Kimi K2.6 vs GLM 5.3 Flash
At a Glance
| Compare |  Kimi K2.6Moonshot AI |  GLM 5.3 FlashZ.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5 | #32 of 4650.5 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 33.6–67.0 | #29 of 4654.6 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 36.4–69.8 |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | #21 of 44$0.095 per LiveBench case | #2 of 44$0.0087 per LiveBench case |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5 | #24 of 3850.1 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 41.7–58.4 | #1 of 3877.3 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 68.2–84.9 |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.75Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 21, 2026 | $0.075Z.ai ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $3.50Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 21, 2026 | $0.25Z.ai ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 262K | 1,000K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 28, 2026View model evidence → | Sep 2, 2026View model evidence → |
Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Kimi-K2.6 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,454.9299% of row best · rating · kimi-k2.6; 95% CI [1450.40277919, 1459.43693683]; votes 37502; rank 38 | 1,471.89100% of row best · rating · glm-5.3-flash; 95% CI [1465.37026588, 1478.41920488]; votes 10038; rank 24 |
| LMArena Vision Arenavision-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · statistical tie | 1,280.4099% of row best · rating · kimi-k2.6; 95% CI [1273.38025179, 1287.42397051]; votes 15347; rank 28 | 1,298.71100% of row best · rating · glm-5.3-flash; 95% CI [1287.06707337, 1310.34654848]; votes 3110; rank 17 |
| LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader | 74.18100% of row best · percent · kimi-k2.6-thinking · 27,001 output tokens / case | 73.2799% of row best · percent · glm-5.3-flash · 34,707 output tokens / case |
| ToneBench2026-09-11-10-task-4ef099199c9c · overall_score · unverified | 82.2493% of row best · points · Kimi K2.6 (thinking) · 18,080 output tokens / case | 88.19100% of row best · points · GLM-5.3 Flash · 25,960 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above · 1 tie | 1 benchmark winNo overall winner | 1 benchmark winNo overall winner |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Kimi-K2.6 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Moonshot AI | Z.ai |
| Family | Kimi K2 6 | Glm 5 3 Flash |
| Model | Kimi-K2.6 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
| Version | Kimi-K2.6 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-04-20 | 2026-09-02 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video, Document |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 262K | 1,000K |
| Total parameters | 1T | 320B |
| Active parameters | 32B | 18B |
| License | other | MIT |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Provider access | Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) | Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Together Ai (Standard), Z.ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | agents, chat, computer-use, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools, vision |
Kimi K2.6 Capabilities
GLM 5.3 Flash Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All image comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Kimi-K2.6Moonshot AI | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Kimi-K2.6Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | Kimi-K2.6Moonshot AI | cross-developer peerstext |
 DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | vs | Kimi-K2.6Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Kimi-K2.6Moonshot AI | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Kimi-K2.6Moonshot AI | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Kimi-K2.6Moonshot AI | vs | Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | family variantsembedding, image, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Kimi-K2.6Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Kimi-K2.6Moonshot AI | vs | GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Kimi-K2.6Moonshot AI | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | Kimi-K2.6Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | vs | Kimi-K2.6Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Kimi K2.6 vs GLM 5.3 Flash FAQs
Is Kimi K2.6 or GLM 5.3 Flash better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Kimi K2.6 and GLM 5.3 Flash, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Kimi K2.6 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
Kimi K2.6 is $0.75 and GLM 5.3 Flash is $0.075 per million tokens, so GLM 5.3 Flash is cheaper on this metric. Kimi K2.6 is $3.50 and GLM 5.3 Flash is $0.25 per million tokens, so GLM 5.3 Flash is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Kimi K2.6 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
GLM 5.3 Flash has the larger sourced context window. Kimi K2.6 supports 262K and GLM 5.3 Flash supports 1,000K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Kimi K2.6 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: The verified common benchmarks do not produce a majority winner.
Can Kimi K2.6 or GLM 5.3 Flash be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. Kimi K2.6 is open weight; GLM 5.3 Flash is open weight.
Can Kimi K2.6 and GLM 5.3 Flash understand images?+
Kimi K2.6 is documented with image input; GLM 5.3 Flash is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Kimi K2.6 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Kimi K2.6 is — and GLM 5.3 Flash is 131K.
Do Kimi K2.6 and GLM 5.3 Flash support reasoning and tool use?+
Kimi K2.6: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. GLM 5.3 Flash: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Kimi K2.6 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
Kimi K2.6 has 5 sourced provider routes; GLM 5.3 Flash has 4, so Kimi K2.6 has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Kimi K2.6 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.