Model comparison
Claude 4.1 Opus vs Kimi K2.5
Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude 4.1 Opus #142 (Supported); Kimi K2.5 #54 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude 4.1 Opus and Kimi K2.5 share 4 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Claude 4.1 Opus; 59 to Kimi K2.5.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 4
- Claude 4.1 Opus only
- 0
- Kimi K2.5 only
- 59
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Kimi K2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 4.1 Opus only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 4 shared benchmark results across 4 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Kimi K2.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 59.66 to 45.88. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude 4.1 Opus is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $75.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.60 input / $3.00 output per 1M tokens for Kimi K2.5. That is roughly 25.0x on output cost alone. Kimi K2.5 gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for Claude 4.1 Opus.
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 | Δ | Kimi K2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude 4.1 Opus74.5 | Margin← 15.1 | Kimi K2.559.4 |
| Agentic | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.555.0 |
| Reasoning | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.561.0 |
| Knowledge | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.556.9 |
| Math | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.560.6 |
| Multilingual | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.582.3 |
| Multimodal | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.578.5 |
| Inst. Following | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.593.9 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 74.5%B 76.8%Winner: Kimi K2.5Δ 2.3SWE-bench Verified: Claude 4.1 Opus scored 74.5%; Kimi K2.5 scored 76.8%. Kimi K2.5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude 4.1 Opus | Kimi K2.5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus$15 input / $75 output | Kimi K2.5$0.6 input / $3 output | Kimi K2.5 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude 4.1 Opus29 tok/s | Kimi K2.545 tok/s | Kimi K2.5 has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 4.1 Opus1.66 s | Kimi K2.52.38 s | Claude 4.1 Opus reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus200K | Kimi K2.5256K | Kimi K2.5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic19 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus | Kimi K2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| JobBenchSource | 21.9% | 8.7% | Claude 4.1 Opus leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 50.8% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 60.6% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 52.3% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 54.3% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 65.7% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 77.1% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 14.4% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 27.8% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 29.5% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 59.1% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 72.7% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 95.9% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 11.5% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 45.88% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 14.0% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 21.7% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 25.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1009 | Not comparable |
CodingClaude 4.1 Opus wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus | Kimi K2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 74.5% | 76.8% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | — | 70.8% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 85.0% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 50.7% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 73% | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 58.5% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 77.2% | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 48.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 49.0% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 46.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus | Kimi K2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 28.2% | 35.4% | Kimi K2.5 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 87.6% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 87.6% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 69.2% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 87.1% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | — | 87.1% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 30.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 87.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 29.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -8.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 34.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 64.6% | Not comparable |
Math9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus | Kimi K2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME 2025Source | — | 96.1% | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | — | 95.8% | Not comparable |
| AIME25 (Arcee)Source | — | 96.3% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 95.4% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 91.1% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 87.1% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 81.8% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | — | 27.900% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | — | 4.200% | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal6 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude 4.1 Opus or Kimi K2.5?
Kimi K2.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 59.66 to 45.88. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 74.5% and 76.8%.
Which is better for coding, Claude 4.1 Opus or Kimi K2.5?
Claude 4.1 Opus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 74.5 versus 59.4. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
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.