Kimi K3.1 Pro (Venice) vs GLM 4.7 (Venice)
On the 5 use cases both models ran, GLM 4.7 (Venice) won 5 to 0 (better outcome first, then lower cost).
Pass rate: Kimi K3.1 Pro (Venice) 100% (5 runs) vs GLM 4.7 (Venice) 100% (5 runs). Average cost per run: $0.12 vs $0.02.
| Metric | Kimi K3.1 Pro (Venice) | GLM 4.7 (Venice) |
|---|---|---|
| Runs on shared use cases | 5 | 5 |
| Pass rate | 100% (5/5) | 100% (5/5) |
| Avg cost per run | $0.12 | $0.02 |
| Avg wall time | 3m | 5m |
| Step-ins per run | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Use cases won | 0 | 5 |
Use case by use case
- Backtest a moving-average crossover on a bundled synthetic price file: GLM 4.7 (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 100%)
- Progressive tax on fictional brackets, and pre-tax vs after-tax savings comparison: GLM 4.7 (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 100%)
- Read a synthetic annual-report excerpt and compute financial ratios: GLM 4.7 (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 100%)
- Seeded Monte Carlo retirement odds against a stated success threshold: GLM 4.7 (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 100%)
- Work backward from a retirement budget to a savings target, contributions and earliest retirement age: GLM 4.7 (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 100%)
Only use cases both models ran are compared; all settings of each model are grouped. How we score.