OpenAI compatible API · Attested · Public status

moonshotai/Kimi: K2.7-Code-Highspeed vs Z.ai: GLM 5.2

moonshotai/Kimi: K2.7-Code-Highspeed vs Z.ai: GLM 5.2: compare current API pricing, context, provider routes, privacy, p50 latency, and OpenAI-compatible access.

Verify gateway

Onebase URL to migrate

100sof models and routes

0prompt or output logs. Always.

Compare routesProviders, price, context, and policy posture in one view.

Use auto when uptime mattersKeep a primary model and let fallback handle provider failures.

Same API shapeUse the OpenAI client and set the model you want.

Practical read

Monthly evidence

Z.ai: GLM 5.2 has the lower cheapest prompt+completion route on TrustedRouter. Z.ai: GLM 5.2 has more provider fallback routes, while Z.ai: GLM 5.2 has the larger context window. Current TrustedRouter probes show Z.ai: GLM 5.2 with the lower p50 TTFT.

$10.4445/1Mmoonshotai/Kimi: K2.7-Code-Highspeed cheapest route

$2.2999/1MZ.ai: GLM 5.2 cheapest route

2259 msmoonshotai/Kimi: K2.7-Code-Highspeed fastest measured p50 TTFT via kimi

899 msZ.ai: GLM 5.2 fastest measured p50 TTFT via fireworks

Prices and live route measurements can change. Use the monthly reports when you need a stable evidence window, then run a small task-specific eval before choosing a production default.

moonshotai/Kimi: K2.7-Code-HighspeedZ.ai: GLM 5.2

Model idmoonshotai/kimi-k2.7-code-highspeedz-ai/glm-5.2

Publisher Kimi Z.AI

AI IQ — IQ 120#27

Context262,144 tokens1,048,576 tokens

Credits provider routes131

Cheapest route$10.4445/1M$2.2999/1M

Cached input$0.4009/1M$0.110775/1M to $0.81868/1M

Privacy postureprovider posture varieshas provider E2EE route

Fastest measured p50 TTFT2259 ms via kimi899 ms via fireworks

Highest measured throughputnot enough data48 tok/s via alibaba

Recent route uptime range100.00%0.00% to 100.00%

Modes chat chat

moonshotai/Kimi: K2.7-Code-Highspeed routes

Overview1 Credits routes

Z.ai: GLM 5.2 routes

Overview31 Credits routes
PricingInput, cached input, and output rates
BenchmarksTrustedRouter and external sources
ProvidersAll serving providers

Related comparisons

Browse every comparison

MoonshotAI: Kimi K3 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.254 combined provider routes
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.253 combined provider routes
Z.ai: GLM 5.2 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.353 combined provider routes
Z.ai: GLM 5.2 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.3 Flash51 combined provider routes
MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.6 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.250 combined provider routes
OpenAI: gpt-oss-120b vs Z.ai: GLM 5.250 combined provider routes
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0423 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.249 combined provider routes
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Pro 0423 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.247 combined provider routes

Production choice

Pick a default model. Keep fallback enabled.

TrustedRouter is useful when you know the model you want, but still need provider rollover, budget limits, usage records, and a prompt path you can verify.

OpenAI clientPython

client = OpenAI(
    base_url="https://api.trustedrouter.com/v1",
    api_key="sk-tr-v1-..."
)

response = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="moonshotai/kimi-k2.7-code-highspeed",
    messages=messages,
)

Questions

Which should I use, moonshotai/Kimi: K2.7-Code-Highspeed or Z.ai: GLM 5.2?

Is moonshotai/Kimi: K2.7-Code-Highspeed or Z.ai: GLM 5.2 cheaper?

The current cheapest TrustedRouter route is $10.4445/1M for moonshotai/Kimi: K2.7-Code-Highspeed and $2.2999/1M for Z.ai: GLM 5.2. The comparison uses current catalog prices and updates as provider pricing changes.

Is moonshotai/Kimi: K2.7-Code-Highspeed or Z.ai: GLM 5.2 faster?

Current measured p50 time to first token is 2259 ms for moonshotai/Kimi: K2.7-Code-Highspeed and 899 ms for Z.ai: GLM 5.2. These are routed probe measurements, not vendor-advertised speeds, and update as new samples arrive.

Can I test moonshotai/Kimi: K2.7-Code-Highspeed and Z.ai: GLM 5.2 with the same API?

Yes. Use the same OpenAI-compatible TrustedRouter base URL and API key, then change only the model id between moonshotai/kimi-k2.7-code-highspeed and z-ai/glm-5.2. This makes side-by-side evals possible without maintaining two provider integrations.