Which is better: Kimi K3 or GLM-5.2?

Verdict: Kimi K3 ranks higher (#28 vs #33) and wins 5 of 9 shared benchmarks; GLM-5.2 costs less ($1.40/$4.40 vs $3.00/$15.0 per 1M tokens). AskClash compares Kimi K3 and GLM-5.2 side by side across SWE-bench, GPQA, HLE, Terminal-Bench, coding agent scores, token pricing, AskClash ACB, and context window so you can see which model wins on each benchmark.

How do Kimi K3 and GLM-5.2 compare on coding benchmarks?

The comparison table shows SWE-bench, SWE-Pro, SWE-Atlas, Terminal-Bench, DeepSWE, and coding agent index scores for both Kimi K3 and GLM-5.2 when publicly disclosed.

LLM Comparison

Kimi K3 vs GLM-5.2: benchmark scores, pricing & comparison.

Side-by-side Kimi K3 vs GLM-5.2 comparison across SWE-bench, GPQA, HLE, Terminal-Bench, coding agent scores, token pricing, context window, and AskClash RWT. Green marks the winner on each benchmark.

Verdict: Kimi K3 ranks higher (#28 vs #33) and wins 5 of 9 shared benchmarks; GLM-5.2 costs less ($1.40/$4.40 vs $3.00/$15.0 per 1M tokens).

Open live leaderboard Kimi K3 model page GLM-5.2 model page

Rank #28 vs #33AskClash overall scores 55.7 vs 52.4.

Pricing $3.00/$15.0 vs $1.40/$4.40Input and output token prices per 1M tokens when published.

Open Weight vs Open WeightMoonshot AI vs Z.AI.

Kimi K3 vs GLM-5.2 benchmark comparison

Green cells highlight the winning model for each metric. Scores are cached from the AskClash LLM leaderboard snapshot.

Metric	Kimi K3	GLM-5.2
Overall Score	55.7	52.4
Leaderboard Rank	#28	#33
ACB	57.7	—
RWT	8.0	8.5
Coding Agent Index	51.9	74.4
HLE	43.5	54.7
GPQA	93.5	91.2
IFEval	—	73.3
SWE-Pro	—	62.1
SWE-Atlas	66.1	74.4
Terminal-Bench	12.6	—
DeepSWE	68.5	43.8
GDPval-AA	1668.0	1371.4
MCP Atlas	84.2	76.8
Finance Agent	53.1	49.7
CharXiv	84.8	—
MMMU-Pro	81.6	—
ARC-AGI 2	60.4	—
Tau2	—	99.1
Input Price (per 1M tokens)	$3.00	$1.40
Output Price (per 1M tokens)	$15.0	$4.40
Context Window	1M	1M
Benchmarks Published	16	12

Kimi K3 vs GLM-5.2 head-to-head charts

Kimi K3 leads 6 and GLM-5.2 leads 4 of 10 shared benchmarks. GLM-5.2 is cheaper on a defined 1M-input / 200K-output workload. Charts show only benchmarks both models publish.

Kimi K3GLM-5.2

Overall

55.7Kimi K3

52.4GLM-5.2

RWT

8.0Kimi K3

8.5GLM-5.2

Coding Agent Index

51.9Kimi K3

74.4GLM-5.2

HLE

43.5Kimi K3

54.7GLM-5.2

GPQA

93.5Kimi K3

91.2GLM-5.2

SWE-Atlas

66.1Kimi K3

74.4GLM-5.2

DeepSWE

68.5Kimi K3

43.8GLM-5.2

GDPval-AA

1668.0Kimi K3

1371.4GLM-5.2

MCP Atlas

84.2Kimi K3

76.8GLM-5.2

Finance Agent

53.1Kimi K3

49.7GLM-5.2

Kimi K3

Input$3.00

Output$15.0

Workload$6.00

Context1M

GLM-5.2

Input$1.40

Output$4.40

Workload$2.28

Context1M

Workload = published cost of 1M input + 200K output tokens. Open the live leaderboard for interactive compare charts.

More Kimi K3 and GLM-5.2 comparisons

Explore how Kimi K3 and GLM-5.2 stack up against other top-ranked LLMs.

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Kimi K3 Claude Opus 5.5 vs GLM-5.2 Claude Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K3 Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM-5.2 Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Kimi K3 Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GLM-5.2 Claude Opus 5 vs Kimi K3 Claude Opus 5 vs GLM-5.2 Claude Fable 5 vs Kimi K3 Claude Fable 5 vs GLM-5.2

How to read this comparison

Benchmark scores

Higher is better for all benchmark scores (SWE-bench, GPQA, HLE, Terminal-Bench, etc.). Green marks the model with the higher score.

Token pricing

Lower is better for input and output prices. Green marks the cheaper model per 1M tokens.

Coverage matters

Models with fewer disclosed benchmark cells may have inflated percentile scores. Check the benchmark cell count for context.

This comparison page is generated from the AskClash LLM leaderboard cache. Open the live leaderboard for real-time scores and interactive filtering.