GLM-5.2 vs Kimi K2.6: Budget Math Brawl
My call: GLM-5.2 wins the math crown, but Kimi K2.6 wins the invoice fight. If you’re chasing the highest AIME 2026 score, GLM-5.2 lands cleaner at 99.2%. If you’re running volume, Kimi K2.6’s $0.95 input price is hard to ignore.
Math accuracy: GLM-5.2 has the cleaner punch
On AIME 2026, the scorecard is clear: GLM-5.2 leads at 99.2%, while Kimi K2.6 sits at 96.4%. That’s a 2.8-point gap, and at this level, 2.8 points isn’t background noise — it’s the difference between “almost perfect” and “the current board leader.”
That said, Kimi K2.6 is not getting walked down here. A 96.4% AIME 2026 result keeps it deep in elite territory. For contest math, symbolic reasoning, and answer-checking workflows, both models deserve a look. GLM-5.2 just has the sharper recorded finish in the numbers we have.
Price: Kimi K2.6 hits back hard
Now the wallet round gets spicy. GLM-5.2 costs $1.40/1M input tokens and $4.40/1M output tokens. Kimi K2.6 costs $0.95/1M input tokens and $4.00/1M output tokens.
That means GLM-5.2 is meaningfully pricier on input and only slightly pricier on output. If your workload is prompt-heavy — long problem statements, retrieval chunks, multi-step agent traces — Kimi K2.6 can stretch the budget better. If output dominates, the gap narrows.
Practical use: peak solver or cheap workhorse?
For math-first evaluation, GLM-5.2 is the stronger pick based on the provided AIME 2026 result. I’d put it in the final-answer chair for hard quantitative tasks where the last few points matter.
Kimi K2.6 fits better as the high-volume grinder: drafting solutions, generating variants, checking easier problems, or running many parallel attempts before a final judge model steps in.