Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersThe learned values that shape how a model responds. B means billion and T means trillion. For mixture-of-experts models, the total count is larger than the number active for each token. Parameter count alone does not measure quality. | 2.8T | 355B |
Context windowHow much information the model can work with in one request, measured in tokens — pieces of words or other data. This includes your question, attachments, conversation and reply. Limits can vary by model variant and provider. | 1M | 128k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | — | $0.60 |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | — | $2.20 |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | — | $0.11 |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | — | $0.60Z.AI |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $2.20Z.AI |
| — | $230Z.ai list price | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | — | 8% |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | — | 64.2% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 79.1% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Moonshot AI | Z.ai |
| Release date | Oct 23 2026 | Jul 28 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Kimi K3.1 Pro HighspeedvsClaude Haiku 5.5GLM-4.5vsClaude Haiku 5.5Kimi K3.1 Pro HighspeedvsGPT-6.1 SolGLM-4.5vsGPT-6.1 SolKimi K3.1 Pro HighspeedvsGemini 4 ArgonGLM-4.5vsGemini 4 ArgonKimi K3.1 Pro HighspeedvsMuse Spark OpenGLM-4.5vsMuse Spark OpenKimi K3.1 Pro HighspeedvsGrok 4.7GLM-4.5vsGrok 4.7Kimi K3.1 Pro HighspeedvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GLM-4.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Frequently asked questions
Kimi K3.1 Pro Highspeed and GLM-4.5 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only GLM-4.5 has a verified first-party API price: $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Kimi K3.1 Pro Highspeed. GLM-4.5 shipped 452 days before Kimi K3.1 Pro Highspeed, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Kimi K3.1 Pro Highspeed has 2.8T parameters, while GLM-4.5 has 355B. Context windows are 1M (Kimi K3.1 Pro Highspeed) vs 128k (GLM-4.5). Kimi K3.1 Pro Highspeed is closed, while GLM-4.5 is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Kimi K3.1 Pro Highspeed and GLM-4.5 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.