Model comparison
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking vs Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Head-to-head evidence from 9 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking #184 (Supported); Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) #57 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking and Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) share 9 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking; 18 to Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning).
Updated July 22, 2026- Shared results
- 9
- Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking only
- 0
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) only
- 18
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking and Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 9 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking has the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning).
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Δ | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)55.0 |
| Coding | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)76.8 |
| Knowledge | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)87.2 |
| Multimodal | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)78.5 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot available | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)$0.6 input / $3 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking29 tok/s | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking15.00 s | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking200K | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)128K | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 71.4% | 95.9% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 50.8% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 60.6% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 11.5% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 32.58% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 21.7% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 25.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1009 | Not comparable |
Coding4 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 33.7% | 35.4% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 80.9% | 87.9% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 11.9% | 29.4% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
| GPQASource | — | 87.6% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 87.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -8.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 34.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 64.6% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME 2025Source | — | 96.1% | Not comparable |
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 55.4% | 70.2% | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking and Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking and Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) today?
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking: Pricing unavailable Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning): $0.60 input / $3.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
Related Comparisons
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.