Model comparison

GLM 5.2 vs Kimi K3.1 Pro

Pricing, context window and real answers (October 2026)

GLM 5.2 (Z.ai) and Kimi K3.1 Pro (Moonshot), compared as you can actually call them on FastMetal. Both are served from the same OpenAI-compatible endpoint and API key; switching is a change to the model string.

Specs and pricing

z-ai logoGLM 5.2moonshotai logoKimi K3.1 Pro
ProviderZ.aiMoonshot
Input (per 1M tokens)$1.48$2.11
Output (per 1M tokens)$4.65$10.55
Typical cost (1,000 in + 500 out tokens × 1,000 calls)$3.80$7.39
Context window1,048,576 tokens1,048,576 tokens
Release date6/16/202610/23/2026
Input modalitiestexttext, image, video
Throughput (p50)——
Arena · overall#37 · ELO 1,475Unranked
Arena · Japanese#36 · ELO 1,453Unranked
Arena · coding#46 · ELO 1,514Unranked

Prices are FastMetal's rates, before tax.

Rankings: LMArena leaderboard dataset (lmarena-ai/leaderboard-dataset), CC BY 4.0, snapshot 2026-10-22; category names mapped and ratings rounded by FastMetal.

Which should you pick?

  • On price, GLM 5.2: $4.65 per 1M output tokens, 56% less than Kimi K3.1 Pro.
  • If in doubt, try both on the same key. Switching is a change to the model string, and each is billed at its own rate.

Real answers to the same prompts

Exactly what the FastMetal gateway returned, side by side. Not benchmark scores: actual output.

Count the number of 'r's in 'strawberry'

Count the number of 'r's in 'strawberry'. Explain your reasoning step by step.

GLM 5.2

To count the number of 'r's in the word 'strawberry', let's look at the word letter by letter: 1. **s** - no 'r' 2. **t** - no 'r' 3. **r** - this is the 1st 'r' 4. **a** - no 'r' 5. **w** - no 'r' 6. **b** - no 'r' 7. **e** - no 'r' 8. **r** - this is the 2nd 'r' 9. **r** - this is the 3rd 'r' 10. **y** - no 'r' Total count: 3 There are **3** 'r's in the word 'strawberry'.
2.6s439 output tokens

Kimi K3.1 Pro

There are **3** ‘r’s in **“strawberry.”** 1. Write out each letter: **s – t – r – a – w – b – e – r – r – y** 2. Locate the ‘r’s: positions **3, 8, and 9**. 3. Count them: **1 + 1 + 1 = 3**.
11.3s

Debug This Error

I'm getting the following error in my Node.js application: TypeError: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'map') at UserList (/app/components/UserList.js:12:25) at renderWithHooks (/app/node_modules/rea…

GLM 5.2

The error `TypeError: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'map')` happens because the `users` prop being passed to your `UserList` component is currently `undefined`. When JavaScript tries to call `.map()` on `undefined`, it throws this error. Here are the best ways to fix this: ### Fix 1: Provide a default value (Recommended) You can provide a default empty array `[]` when destructuring the props. This ensures that even if `users` is not passed down, the `.map()` function will still have an array to iterate over (resulting in an empty list rather than a crash). ```jsx function UserList({ users = [] }) { return ( <ul> {users.map(user => <li key={user.id}>{user.name}</…
8.3s1006 output tokens

Kimi K3.1 Pro

## What's causing the error The error means `users` is `undefined` when the component renders, and you can't call `.map()` on `undefined`. The component itself is fine — the problem is that whatever renders `<UserList />` either isn't passing the prop, or is passing a value that isn't an array yet. The most common cause is **async data fetching**: the parent renders `UserList` before the data has loaded. ```jsx function App() { const [users, setUsers] = useState(); // ❌ undefined on first render useEffect(() => { fetch('/api/users') .then(res => res.json()) .then(setUsers); }, []); return <UserList users={users} />; // users is undefined here initially } ``` On…
36.3s

Code Review

Please review the following Python function and suggest improvements for readability, performance, and best practices: def get_data(url, retries=3): import requests import time for i in range(retries):…

GLM 5.2

Here is a review of your Python function, broken down by readability, performance, and best practices, followed by a refactored version of the code. ### 1. Best Practices * **Move imports to the top:** Importing modules inside a function is generally discouraged. While Python caches imports, putting `import requests` and `import time` at the top of your file is the standard convention and improves readability. * **Avoid bare `except:` blocks:** Using a bare `except:` catches everything, including `KeyboardInterrupt` and `SystemExit`. This makes it hard to interrupt your program if it gets stuck in a loop. You should catch specific exceptions, such as `requests.exceptions.RequestException` (…
10.9s2061 output tokens

Kimi K3.1 Pro

The timeout and bounded retry loop are good starting points. The biggest issue is that failures—and even programming errors—are silently converted into retries and then `[]`. ### Suggested improvements - **Avoid bare `except:`**. It catches `KeyboardInterrupt`, `KeyError`, JSON/schema errors, and other bugs. Retry only expected transient network failures; let malformed responses fail visibly. - **Use a deliberate retry policy**. Retrying `401`, `403`, or `404` usually wastes time. Retry only transient statuses, use exponential backoff, and avoid sleeping after the final attempt. - **Do not use `[]` for both failure and no results**. Prefer raising the final exception so callers can disting…
560.2s

Compare on more prompts →

Frequently asked questions

Which is cheaper, GLM 5.2 or Kimi K3.1 Pro?
Per 1M output tokens, GLM 5.2 is $4.65 and Kimi K3.1 Pro is $10.55 on FastMetal (US dollars, before tax), so GLM 5.2 is cheaper.
How do the context windows of GLM 5.2 and Kimi K3.1 Pro compare?
GLM 5.2 takes 1,048,576 tokens; Kimi K3.1 Pro takes 1,048,576.
Can I use GLM 5.2 and Kimi K3.1 Pro with the same API key?
Yes. On FastMetal's OpenAI-compatible endpoint, switch by passing "glm-5.2" or "kimi-k3.1-pro" as the model. Each is billed at its own rate from the same prepaid balance.

Try both on one API key

Create an account and add credit to call GLM 5.2 and Kimi K3.1 Pro from the browser chat and the API. No monthly fee.

More comparisons with GLM 5.2

More comparisons with Kimi K3.1 Pro