AllocateKimi K2.6 Fp4 vs GLM 5.1 FP4
On provider list prices, Kimi K2.6 Fp4 costs $1.20 per million input tokens against $1.40 for GLM 5.1 FP4: 1.2x apart. Output is $4.50 against $4.40. On Allocate both bill at list plus the 7% transaction fee.
Kimi K2.6 Fp4G GLM 5.1 FP4Specifications and provider list prices from the Allocate catalog, checked 2026-07-08. Billed price is list plus the 7% transaction fee.
What the numbers say
Take 1,000,000 requests a month at 1,200 input and 350 output tokens each. That workload costs $3,015 a month on Kimi K2.6 Fp4 and $3,220 on GLM 5.1 FP4 at list: a gap of $205.
Kimi K2.6 Fp4 reads 256K tokens per request against 198K for GLM 5.1 FP4, 1.3x the window. That decides which one can take whole documents without splitting them.
Choose Kimi K2.6 Fp4 for
- The lower list price ($1.20 in / $4.50 out per M tokens)
- The longer context window (256K vs 198K tokens)
Common questions
Which is cheaper, Kimi K2.6 Fp4 or GLM 5.1 FP4?
Kimi K2.6 Fp4, on this workload shape. At list prices it is $1.20/$4.50 per million tokens in and out against $1.40/$4.40 for GLM 5.1 FP4. Billed on Allocate: $1.28/$4.82 against $1.50/$4.71, list plus 7%.
Which has the bigger context window?
Kimi K2.6 Fp4: 262,144 tokens (256K) against 202,752 (198K) for GLM 5.1 FP4.
Can I fine-tune Kimi K2.6 Fp4 or GLM 5.1 FP4?
Both publish open weights (Kimi K2.6 Fp4: Not listed; GLM 5.1 FP4: Not listed), so both can be fine-tuned. On Allocate the trained weights stay inside your boundary and belong to you.
Related comparisons
Run the numbers on your workload
Or don’t choose. On Allocate a route name is the contract: point yours at one model today, swap to the other tomorrow, and compare them on your live traffic with per-token metering.