Which Chinese Open‑Source LLM Wins the Tech‑Selection Battle: GLM‑5, MiniMax‑M2.1 or Kimi‑K2.5?

The article evaluates three Chinese open‑source large language models—GLM‑5, MiniMax‑M2.1 and Kimi‑K2.5—for use with the OpenClaw AI‑Agent gateway, comparing core specifications, programming and agent benchmarks, multimodal abilities, deployment costs, and scenario‑specific recommendations, while also sharing practical pitfalls.

Shuge Unlimited
Shuge Unlimited
Shuge Unlimited
Which Chinese Open‑Source LLM Wins the Tech‑Selection Battle: GLM‑5, MiniMax‑M2.1 or Kimi‑K2.5?

Core Model Specifications

GLM-5 – Developed by Zhipu AI; MoE architecture; 744 B total parameters, 40 B activation parameters; pre‑trained on 28.5 T tokens; 200 K context window, 128 K max output; text‑only input; commercial license (negotiable).

MiniMax‑M2.1 – Developed by MiniMax; architecture not disclosed; parameter count not disclosed; activation parameters not disclosed; pre‑training data not disclosed; context window not disclosed; max output not disclosed; text‑only input; open‑source license.

Kimi‑K2.5 – Developed by Moonshot AI; MoE architecture with 1 T total parameters (384 experts, 8 active per token); 32 B activation parameters; pre‑trained on 15 T vision‑text tokens; 256 K context window, 64 K+ max output; supports text, image, and video input; Modified MIT license.

Programming Benchmark Performance

SWE‑bench Verified – GLM‑5: 77.8, MiniMax‑M2.1: ~70+, Kimi‑K2.5: 76.8.

Terminal Bench 2.0 – GLM‑5: 56.2, Kimi‑K2.5: 50.8 (MiniMax‑M2.1 not reported).

VIBE‑Web – MiniMax‑M2.1: 91.5 (GLM‑5 and Kimi‑K2.5 not reported).

VIBE‑Android – MiniMax‑M2.1: 89.7.

LiveCodeBench (v6) – Kimi‑K2.5: 85.0.

SWE‑Bench Multilingual – Kimi‑K2.5: 73.0.

Agent Capability Benchmarks

BrowseComp – GLM‑5 achieves open‑source SOTA; Kimi‑K2.5 reaches 78.4 with its Agent Swarm architecture.

MCP‑Atlas – GLM‑5 achieves open‑source SOTA (MiniMax‑M2.1 not reported).

τ²‑Bench – GLM‑5 achieves open‑source SOTA.

Agent Swarm latency – Kimi‑K2.5 reduces latency by 4.5× compared with single‑agent baselines.

Framework Compatibility – GLM‑5: strong; MiniMax‑M2.1: strongest (compatible with six major Agent frameworks); Kimi‑K2.5: strong.

MiniMax‑M2.1 Framework Compatibility Details

Claude Code – ✅ stable

Cline – ✅ stable (platform‑popular model)

Droid (Factory AI) – ✅ stable

Kilo Code – ✅ stable

Roo Code – ✅ stable

BlackBox – ✅ stable

OpenClaw Installation & Startup

# macOS/Linux
curl -fsSL https://openclaw.ai/install.sh | bash

# Windows (PowerShell)
iwr -useb https://openclaw.ai/install.ps1 | iex

# Install & configure daemon
openclaw onboard --install-daemon

# Check gateway status
openclaw gateway status

# Open dashboard
openclaw dashboard

Configure Multiple Model Agents in OpenClaw

{
  "agents": {
    "list": [
      {
        "id": "glm5-coding",
        "name": "GLM-5 编程助手",
        "workspace": "~/.openclaw/workspace-glm5",
        "model": "zhipu/glm-5"
      },
      {
        "id": "minimax-fullstack",
        "name": "MiniMax 全栈开发",
        "workspace": "~/.openclaw/workspace-minimax",
        "model": "minimax/m2.1"
      },
      {
        "id": "kimi-agent",
        "name": "Kimi 智能体",
        "workspace": "~/.openclaw/workspace-kimi",
        "model": "moonshot/kimi-k2.5"
      }
    ]
  },
  "bindings": [
    { "agentId": "glm5-coding", "match": { "channel": "whatsapp" } },
    { "agentId": "minimax-fullstack", "match": { "channel": "telegram" } },
    { "agentId": "kimi-agent", "match": { "channel": "discord" } }
  ]
}

Common Pitfalls

API token cost mis‑estimation – GLM‑5’s “Thinking Mode” can consume up to five times more tokens than normal mode, inflating cost for long‑running or high‑frequency calls.

Compatibility is not full‑feature – MiniMax‑M2.1 claims six‑framework compatibility, but advanced features (e.g., streaming control) may fail on Cline.

Multimodal boundaries – Kimi‑K2.5 handles simple UI mockups well; complex multi‑layer designs produce inconsistent code quality.

Context length trade‑off – Filling the 256 K context of Kimi‑K2.5 degrades response speed and can confuse the model.

Deployment cost – GLM‑5 (744 B) requires hundreds of GB VRAM; MiniMax‑M2.1’s hidden size likely incurs similar hardware costs.

Reference Resources

GLM‑5 documentation: https://docs.bigmodel.cn/cn/guide/models/text/glm-5 GLM‑5 ModelScope: https://www.modelscope.cn/models/ZhipuAI/GLM-5 MiniMax‑M2.1 announcement: https://www.minimaxi.com/news/minimax-m21 MiniMax‑M2.1 ModelScope: https://www.modelscope.cn/models/MiniMax/MiniMax-M2.1 Kimi‑K2.5 HuggingFace: https://huggingface.co/moonshotai/Kimi-K2.5 Kimi‑K2.5 ModelScope: https://www.modelscope.cn/models/moonshotai/Kimi-K2.5 Kimi‑K2.5 paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.02276 OpenClaw documentation:

https://docs.openclaw.ai
Original Source

Signed-in readers can open the original source through BestHub's protected redirect.

Sign in to view source
Republication Notice

This article has been distilled and summarized from source material, then republished for learning and reference. If you believe it infringes your rights, please contactadmin@besthub.devand we will review it promptly.

multimodalOpenClawGLM-5LLM benchmarkingMiniMax-M2.1Agent SwarmKimi-K2.5
Shuge Unlimited
Written by

Shuge Unlimited

Formerly "Ops with Skill", now officially upgraded. Fully dedicated to AI, we share both the why (fundamental insights) and the how (practical implementation). From technical operations to breakthrough thinking, we help you understand AI's transformation and master the core abilities needed to shape the future. ShugeX: boundless exploration, skillful execution.

0 followers
Reader feedback

How this landed with the community

Sign in to like

Rate this article

Was this worth your time?

Sign in to rate
Discussion

0 Comments

Thoughtful readers leave field notes, pushback, and hard-won operational detail here.