Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Kimi K2

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

56.58/100
Margin
29.4pts
← winning
Kimi K2
Moonshot AI
27.19/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Haiku 4.5 #77 (Estimated); Kimi K2 #189 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Haiku 4.5 and Kimi K2 share 3 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Claude Haiku 4.5; 11 to Kimi K2.

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
3
Claude Haiku 4.5 only
2
Kimi K2 only
11
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Claude Haiku 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Kimi K2 only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 2 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

Claude Haiku 4.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 56.58 to 27.19. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Haiku 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.00 input / $5.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.60 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Kimi K2. That is roughly 2.0x on output cost alone. Claude Haiku 4.5 gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for Kimi K2.

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 scores and score margins for Claude Haiku 4.5 and Kimi K2
CategoryClaude Haiku 4.5ΔKimi K2
MathClaude Haiku 4.54.9Margin→ 11.2Kimi K216.1
CodingClaude Haiku 4.573.3MarginNo overlapKimi K2Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Haiku 4.5B · Kimi K2

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 5.903%B 21.404%
    Winner: Kimi K2Δ 15.5
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Haiku 4.5 scored 5.903%; Kimi K2 scored 21.404%. Kimi K2 wins this benchmark.

  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 2.083%B 0.000%
    Winner: Claude Haiku 4.5Δ 2.1
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Haiku 4.5 scored 2.083%; Kimi K2 scored 0.000%. Claude Haiku 4.5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Haiku 4.5Kimi K2Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Haiku 4.5$1 input / $5 outputKimi K2$0.6 input / $2.5 outputKimi K2 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Haiku 4.5Not availableKimi K243 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Haiku 4.5Not availableKimi K21.51 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Haiku 4.5200KKimi K2128KClaude Haiku 4.5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Kimi K2Result
JobBenchSource 16.0%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —61.1%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Kimi K2Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 73.3%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource —34.5%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Kimi K2Result
AA-LCRSource —51.0%Not comparable
CritPtSource —0.0%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Kimi K2Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource —19.4%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —76.6%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —7.0%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —-27.5%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —26.8%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —74.2%Not comparable
MathKimi K2 wins
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Kimi K2Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 5.903%21.404%Kimi K2 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 2.083%0.000%Claude Haiku 4.5 leads
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Kimi K2Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource 11541083Claude Haiku 4.5 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Kimi K2Result
AA-IFBenchSource —41.5%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Kimi K2?

Claude Haiku 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 56.58 to 27.19. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 5.903% and 21.404%.

Which is better for math, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Kimi K2?

Kimi K2 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 16.1 versus 4.9. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 20, 2026

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.