Data points: 86
Model compare
The readout for GLM-4.7 Flash and Kimi K2.5, before the detailed comparison sheet.
Weighted outcome: Kimi K2.5. Benchmark capability categories carry 80%, while price, API performance, and availability carry 20%.
Decision read
Kimi K2.5
Kimi K2.5 has the higher weighted result; Model A / B score 2 to 98.
Evidence depth
86 data points
Includes 10 benchmark rows, 0 audit samples, and 8 provider examples.
Selection signal
Start with Kimi K2.5
The charts below split 18 high-signal samples across speed, scores, and audit health.
Switch either side of this report to compare another model with the same LMSpeed data pipeline.
Select a different model to open a new comparison URL.
This report only uses LMSpeed data for GLM-4.7 Flash and Kimi K2.5: pricing, speed aggregates, third-party benchmark scores, and shared provider samples.
| Model compare | GLM-4.7 Flash | Kimi K2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Overall leader | Contender | Leading |
| Weighted overall score | 2.0 pts | 98.0 pts |
| Benchmark category leads | 0 categories | 2 categories |
| Operational advantages | No data | Cheapest input price, Average speed, First-token latency, Provider coverage |
| Context window | 200K tokens | 262.1K tokens |
| Max output | 131.1K tokens | 262.1K tokens |
| Modalities | Input Text Output Text | Input Text |
The overall result weights benchmark capability categories at 80% and price, API speed/latency, and availability at 20%. Recent test volume does not affect the winner, and missing benchmark categories are excluded.
| Model compare | GLM-4.7 Flash | Kimi K2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Z.ai | MoonshotAI |
| Released | Jan 2026 | Jan 2026 |
| Parameters | No data | No data |
| Tokenizer | Other | Other |
| Knowledge cutoff | No data | No data |
| OpenRouter ID | z-ai/glm-4.7-flash | moonshotai/kimi-k2.5 |
| References | No data | No data |
This report only uses LMSpeed data for GLM-4.7 Flash and Kimi K2.5: pricing, speed aggregates, third-party benchmark scores, and shared provider samples.
GLM-4.7 Flash
GLM-4.7 Flash does not clearly lead in the benchmark or operational dimensions shared by both models.
Kimi K2.5
Kimi K2.5 is stronger in benchmark categories (Coding, Reasoning) and operational dimensions (Cheapest input price, Average speed, First-token latency, Provider coverage).
Third-party benchmark profile synced into LMSpeed; only metrics available for both models are shown.
Compare benchmark category scores on a 0-100 scale. Select a category to inspect the gap.
Avg. score
GLM-4.7 Flash
41.5
Avg. score
Kimi K2.5
50
Kimi K2.5
Kimi K2.5 leads by 7.9
Kimi K2.5 leads by 15.3
Kimi K2.5
Kimi K2.5
Kimi K2.5
Kimi K2.5
Kimi K2.5
Metric-level scores with benchmark source, rank depth, confidence, error, and evaluation date where available.
GLM-4.7 Flash
11.0
Rank #116/127 · confidence 1 · eval date 2025-10-01
Kimi K2.5
winner61.0
Rank #48/127 · confidence 4 · eval date 2026-02-01
GLM-4.7 Flash
24.52 s
Rank #97/139 · confidence 4
Kimi K2.5
winner1.16 s
Rank #42/139 · confidence 4
GLM-4.7 Flash
winner0.92 s
Rank #46/139 · confidence 4
Kimi K2.5
1.16 s
Rank #73/139 · confidence 4
GLM-4.7 Flash
winner84.7 tok/s
Rank #73/139 · confidence 4
Kimi K2.5
46.3 tok/s
Rank #117/139 · confidence 4
GLM-4.7 Flash
winner$0.070/M
Rank #5/163 · confidence 4
Kimi K2.5
$0.600/M
Rank #81/163 · confidence 4
GLM-4.7 Flash
winner$0.153/M
Rank #11/163 · confidence 4
Kimi K2.5
$1.20/M
Rank #86/163 · confidence 4
GLM-4.7 Flash
winner$0.400/M
Rank #13/163 · confidence 4
Kimi K2.5
$3.00/M
Rank #86/163 · confidence 4
GLM-4.7 Flash
58.1%
Rank #147/187 · confidence 4
Kimi K2.5
winner78.9%
Rank #78/187 · confidence 4
GLM-4.7 Flash
7.1%
Rank #111/186 · confidence 4
Kimi K2.5
winner12.3%
Rank #83/186 · confidence 4
GLM-4.7 Flash
33.7%
Rank #118/184 · confidence 4
Kimi K2.5
winner39.6%
Rank #75/184 · confidence 4
Latest completed audits from shared providers, with four safety and integrity score groups plus report links.
| Provider | GLM-4.7 Flash | Kimi K2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| No completed audits are available from shared providers yet. | ||
Speed aggregates and input/output pricing share each provider row for real API selection and migration cost checks.
| Provider | GLM-4.7 Flash | Kimi K2.5 |
|---|---|---|
30 tests | GLM-4.7 Flash speed / latency 34 tok/s / 1567ms input / output No data | Kimi K2.5 speed / latency 38 tok/s / 22910ms input / output No data |
10 tests | GLM-4.7 Flash speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data | Kimi K2.5 speed / latency 65 tok/s / 9952ms input / output No data |
10 tests | GLM-4.7 Flash speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data | Kimi K2.5 speed / latency 66 tok/s / 13195ms input / output No data |
5 tests | GLM-4.7 Flash speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data | Kimi K2.5 speed / latency 43 tok/s / 1114ms input / output No data |
5 tests | GLM-4.7 Flash glm-4.7-flash speed / latency 53 tok/s / 20537ms input / output $0/M/$0/M | Kimi K2.5 kimi-k2.5 speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output $0/M |
GLM-4.7 Flash glm-4.7-flash speed / latency No data input / output $0/M/$0/M | Kimi K2.5 kimi-k2.5 speed / latency No data input / output $0/M | |
GLM-4.7 Flash glm-4.7-flash speed / latency No data input / output $0.0062/M/$0.036/M | Kimi K2.5 kimi-k2.5 speed / latency No data input / output $0.041/M | |
GLM-4.7 Flash glm-4.7-flash speed / latency No data input / output $0.0099/M/$0.058/M | Kimi K2.5 kimi-k2.5 speed / latency No data input / output $0.060/M |
Weighted outcome: Kimi K2.5. Benchmark capability categories carry 80%, while price, API performance, and availability carry 20%.
Output
| Features | Text inputText outputTool callingStructured outputsJSON modeReasoning | Text inputImage inputText outputTool callingStructured outputsJSON modeReasoning |
|---|
