Compare
GLM (Z.ai) vs Kimi Code
A plain-English comparison to help you choose between them.
Pick GLM if you want to keep the client you already use: the GLM Coding Plan, a flat monthly subscription, feeds its models into tools such as Claude Code, so nothing about your workflow changes. Pick Kimi Code if you are willing to adopt its own open-source client, a CLI for terminal and IDEs that Zed and JetBrains can drive over ACP. Both are cost-controlled and both publish open weights, though GLM's newest plan model is served rather than downloadable, and both hosted APIs carry a cross-border data question worth settling first, so the real decision is the client you keep versus the client you take on.
Both tools chosen. Compare is enabled.
Side by side
- Summary
GLM is Z.ai's coding-first model family, sold both as a change to what powers the client you already use and through ZCode, Z.ai's own first-party client on the same Coding Plan quota. The GLM Coding Plan runs open-weight models inside clients such as Claude Code: you keep the client, the workflow and the keybindings, and change what feeds them with a configuration edit rather than a migration. For a team already settled into its tooling, that is the cheapest structural change on offer.
The honest working pattern is a daily driver plus a retained frontier seat. GLM carries the routine coding volume, while ambiguous specs and sustained multi-agent work still go to the closed frontier models, which remain ahead on exactly that kind of task. No tool is best for everyone; this one is unusually clear about which half of the work it wants.
- Best for
- Flat-rate coding subscription
- MIT-licensed GLM-5.2 open weights you can self-host
- A 1M-token context for large-codebase work
- Pay-per-token API access alongside the subscription
- A coding-first family, not a general-purpose assistant
- Cost
- Freemium (Free tier + paid plans)
- Ease
- Openness
- Runs privately (self-hostable)
- Data
- GLM's hosted terms point to Singapore while its developer is Chinese-founded, a jurisdiction point to weigh before routing real code or prompts through it. Self-hosting the open weights removes that question entirely: the model runs on infrastructure you control, and nothing leaves it.
- Summary
Kimi Code is a coding agent for the terminal and IDEs whose command-line interface is itself open source, published by Moonshot AI in the MoonshotAI/kimi-code repository. Its distinguishing move is that you can adopt it without leaving your current tool: the agent speaks the Agent Client Protocol, so ACP-compatible editors such as Zed and JetBrains can drive it, and it can import the MCP servers configured for other agents.
It also runs as a backend for other coding agents, Claude Code among them, through an Anthropic-compatible API endpoint: point the base URL and key at Kimi and the front end stays the same. Under it sits Kimi K2.7-Code, an open-weight, coding-focused model Moonshot released on 12 June 2026 on Hugging Face under a Modified MIT licence, with a 256K-token context window.
MoreLess
Access comes through a Kimi Code plan or wider Kimi membership: a monthly subscription from around $19 at the Moderato tier, or pay-as-you-go through the API. Quotas refresh weekly and carry concurrency limits, so heavy use needs an eye on the meter. A plan also folds in broader Kimi membership benefits.
- Best for
- Open-source terminal and IDE agent adopted without switching tools
- Speaks ACP so Zed and JetBrains can drive it
- Backs Claude Code through an Anthropic-compatible endpoint
- Imports MCP servers configured for other agents
- Subscription from around $19, or pay-as-you-go through the API
- Cost
- Freemium (Free tier + paid plans)
- Ease
- Openness
- Runs privately (self-hostable)
- Data
- The command-line client is open source, but where your code travels depends on the route you take. The coding plan links its legal documents to kimi.com, whose terms place data in the People's Republic of China under a Beijing entity; the separate developer OpenPlatform states servers in Singapore. Establish which route you are on before sending sensitive work through it. Agent output needs the same diff review as any coding agent before it ships.
Pricing
- GLM (Z.ai)
$12.60·$56·$117.60$79.20/user·$169.20/user
Prices as of August 2026.
- Lite
- $12.60per monthbilled annually; $18 per month if billed monthly
- Pro
- $56per monthbilled annually; $80 per month if billed monthly
- Max
- $117.60per monthbilled annually; $168 per month if billed monthly
- Standard Seat
- $79.20per user, per monthbilled annually; $88 per user per month if billed monthly
- Premium Seat
- $169.20per user, per monthbilled annually; $188 per user per month if billed monthly
- Kimi Code
$19·$39·$99·$199
Prices as of August 2026.
- Moderato
- $19per month$15 per month if billed annually; new plans are waitlist-only
- Allegretto
- $39per month$31 per month if billed annually; new plans are waitlist-only
- Allegro
- $99per month$79 per month if billed annually; new plans are waitlist-only
- Vivace
- $199per month$159 per month if billed annually; new plans are waitlist-only
By area
Where each one pulls ahead, area by area.
| Area | GLM (Z.ai) | Kimi Code |
|---|---|---|
| By job | ||
| Founders & entrepreneurs | GLM caps the team's monthly AI coding spend at a known figure through the flat Coding Plan, with a pay-per-token API alongside for anything better metered | Kimi Code adds a coding agent to the stack for a low monthly fee and gives a solo founder a 256K-token context to prototype against |
| Software development | GLM works across large repositories inside a 1M-token context and handles the refactoring and test-writing volume that make up most of a daily coding routine, all on the flat plan | both are open-weight coding subscriptions, but GLM sells a plan that runs inside your existing client whereas Kimi Code is its own client that other clients can also call |
| By task | ||
| Coding & software development | GLM feeds its open-weight models into the client you already use, and Z.ai also ships ZCode, its own agent drawing on the same Coding Plan | both sell open-weight coding subscriptions, but GLM's plan runs inside your existing client while Kimi Code is its own client that others can call |
Common questions
How do I actually choose between them?
By what you keep. GLM is the GLM Coding Plan, a flat monthly subscription that runs open-weight models inside the editor or client you already work in, so your workflow does not change. Kimi Code is its own open-source client you install and adopt, though it speaks ACP so Zed and JetBrains can drive it. Choose on whether you want to keep your current client or take on a new one.
Can Kimi Code work inside Claude Code the way GLM does?
Partly. Kimi Code can back Claude Code through an Anthropic-compatible endpoint, so you can point that client at it. Its natural home, though, is its own open-source CLI for terminal and IDEs, with Zed and JetBrains driving it over ACP. GLM is built the other way round: the GLM Coding Plan feeds tools such as Claude Code, and Z.ai also ships ZCode, its own agent drawing on the same plan.
Are these ready to replace a frontier coding model?
As daily drivers, yes, and both are cost-controlled. GLM publishes open weights for the generation before the one its plan now serves; Kimi Code's own coding model is open-weight from the entry tier, and its higher tiers reach a far larger context. On ambiguous specifications and sustained multi-agent work, frontier closed models still win, so teams choosing on cost or sovereignty grounds run either of these as the everyday option and keep a frontier seat for the hard cases. Note both hosted APIs raise cross-border questions.
What does a solo developer pay for the GLM Coding Plan against Kimi Code?
GLM sells the Coding Plan as flat monthly tiers, Lite, Pro and Max, cheaper on annual billing, with pay-per-token API access alongside, and the weights themselves cost nothing to run on your own hardware. Kimi Code sells flat monthly tiers, cheaper on annual billing, with pay-as-you-go through the API for spillover, and its command-line client is open source. Both price the month, not the seat, at this level.
Where do GLM and Kimi Code send your code, and which route avoids the question?
GLM's hosted terms point to a Singapore entity while its developer is Chinese-founded, a point to weigh before routing real code through it; self-hosting the open weights removes the question. Kimi Code's plan links its terms to Kimi's consumer agreement and a Beijing entity, while the separate developer platform contracts through a Singapore entity, so establish which route you are on before sending sensitive work.
Is there a free way to run GLM or Kimi Code?
Both, on your own hardware: GLM's weights cost nothing to download and run, and Kimi's coding model is open-weight too, though running either converts a subscription into an infrastructure project that is yours to own. Hosted, the free Kimi tier carries no Kimi Code credits and GLM sells its Coding Plan by subscription, so the hosted route is a plan on either, or pay-as-you-go through their APIs.
If a team tries GLM and then moves to Kimi Code, what carries over?
The client, usually. GLM arrives as a configuration edit inside a client such as Claude Code, so trying it and walking away cost the same; Kimi Code can back that same client through an Anthropic-compatible endpoint, and its own CLI takes a standard MCP configuration file. What is rebuilt is the budget habit, since both meter a weekly quota under a shorter rolling window and the tier sizes differ.
Which has a team plan, GLM or Kimi Code?
GLM, explicitly: beside the flat individual tiers it sells per-seat Standard and Premium seats, bought monthly or annually, so a team buys one seat per developer, two seats minimum, with pay-per-token API alongside. Kimi Code's listed plans are flat monthly tiers, each with a credit pool that refreshes weekly under a concurrency cap, so a team buys one per developer and sizes each against the meter first.
If the team wants inline completion in the editor, is GLM or Kimi Code the tool?
Neither. GLM is a model fed into a client you already use, and Kimi Code is a terminal and IDE agent with an open-source client rather than in-editor completion. This site sends in-editor completion, and the cheapest first mile, to GitHub Copilot, and the integrated authoring surface to Cursor; these two are cost lanes for developers already settled in an agent client.
When does the keep-your-client rule stop favouring GLM over Kimi Code?
When the team already lives in Zed or JetBrains. Kimi Code speaks the Agent Client Protocol, so those editors drive it directly, and the client is one you can read, since its CLI is open source; GLM's advantage assumes a client such as Claude Code is already in daily use. It flips back when the repository needs more context than Kimi Code's entry tier carries.
Related comparisons
Read the full guides
Where to start
Not sure what to adopt first?
Five quick questions about your job, task and constraints. We'll suggest your top three tools, plus the one to try first.
Tool facts last checked August 2026