GLM 5.1 vs Kimi K2.6
Open-weights agentic coding specialists for repo-scale agents.
| Metric | GLM 5.1 | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Fireworks AI | Fireworks AI |
| Input / 1M | $1.40 | $0.95 |
| Output / 1M | $4.40 | $4.00 |
| Cache read / 1M | $0.26 (−81%) | $0.16 (−83%) |
| Reuse-adj @55% | $1.68 | $1.39 |
| Context | 203K | 262K |
| Cache capture | 82% | 81% |
| Warm TTFT | 130ms (−62%) | 140ms (−63%) |
| Quality index | 86 | 85 |
Teal marks the better value in each row. Reuse-adjusted assumes 55% prefix reuse and a 25% output share.
Output-heavy generation where GLM 5.1 balanced input/output pricing is friendlier.
Tool-heavy agent loops with long, stable tool registries that reuse heavily under automatic caching.
Kimi K2.6 for tool-use-dominated coding; GLM 5.1 when generation length drives the bill. Both are common BYOC candidates once volume concentrates.
GLM 5.1 vs Kimi K2.6, answered.
Is GLM 5.1 or Kimi K2.6 cheaper?
At 55% prefix reuse, GLM 5.1 blends to about $1.68 per 1M tokens and Kimi K2.6 to about $1.39. Kimi K2.6 is cheaper on that basis.
Which has the larger context window?
Kimi K2.6 has the larger window: 262K vs 203K tokens.
Which captures more reuse?
GLM 5.1 shows higher measured cache capture (82% vs 81%) in the Zumik corpus.
Let an alias pick for you.
Route to whichever model wins under current policy automatically. Zumik resolves the alias to the best fit per request, so you never hard-code a loser.