Model comparison

GLM-5.3 vs Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo

GLM-5.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.8 to 45.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.3 Z.ai (Zhipu)

54.8

Rank #26 Confirmed

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo Moonshot AI

45.8

Rank #70 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.3 scores higher in 8 categories and Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where GLM-5.3 leads 59.5 to 38.4.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 91.1% for GLM-5.3 and 83.1% for Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo.

Side by side

GLM-5.3 and Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo specifications
GLM-5.3Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Moonshot AI
Noometry Index54.845.8
Released2026-08-142025-11-06
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.40—
Output $ / M tokens$4.40—
Results tracked4221

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 59.5 (#14), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 38.4 (#178)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo
LMArena WebDev16221322
LMArena Coding14961454
DeepSWE69%—
FrontierCode40.1%—
CursorBench42.6%—
FrontierSWE30.2%—
SciCode59%—
WeirdML75.4%—
ALE-Bench1,317—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 36.4 (#38), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo
APEX-Agents56.6%—
Vending-Bench 28,164—

Reasoning GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 46.1 (#46), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 32.5 (#75)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo
Chess Puzzles21%20%
LMArena Hard Prompts14891428
NYT Connections (extended)74.2%—
CritPt19.1%—
Mystery Game Puzzles33%—
DTBench87.7%—
LMCA55.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.15—
Epoch Capabilities Index155.61—

Math GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 62.3 (#33), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 47.4 (#68)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202591.1%83.1%
LMArena Math14891429
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)68.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 429.3%—
ProofBench49%—

Knowledge GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 58.3 (#37), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 50.9 (#69)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo
GPQA Diamond90.9%84.2%
LMArena Expert15161439
SimpleQA Verified41%—

Multilingual GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 55.7 (#28), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 51.4 (#109)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo
LMArena Non-English14571398
LMArena Chinese15281456
LMArena French14991425
LMArena German14991390
LMArena Japanese14531357
LMArena Korean14721330
LMArena Russian14631391
LMArena Spanish14601406

Instruction Following GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 77.5 (#23), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 74.0 (#109)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo
LMArena Instruction Following14771403

Long Context GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 45.4 (#41), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 43.2 (#102)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo
LMArena Longer Query14821415

Writing & Preference GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 75.7 (#6), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 60.0 (#104)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo
LMArena Text14711415
LMArena Creative Writing14571374
LMArena Multi-Turn14721414
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2075—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.3 better than Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo?

GLM-5.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.8 to 45.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5.3 or Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo better for coding?

GLM-5.3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.5 versus 38.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3 and Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo share?

21 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3 has 42 scored results on Noometry and Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper