Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Kimi K2.5

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 45 shared benchmark results across 8 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

64.22/100
Margin
4.6pts
← winning
Kimi K2.5
Moonshot AI
59.66/100
5 category wins3 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #34 (Supported); Kimi K2.5 #54 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 and Kimi K2.5 share 45 comparable benchmark results. 8 of 8 categories are comparable. 14 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5; 18 to Kimi K2.5.

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
45
Claude Opus 4.5 only
14
Kimi K2.5 only
18
Comparable categories
8 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Kimi K2.5 only becomes the better choice if instruction following is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Why this result

Claude Opus 4.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 64.22 to 59.66. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 4.5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 71.7 against 59.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 59.3% to 50.8%. Kimi K2.5 does hit back in instruction following, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Claude Opus 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.60 input / $3.00 output per 1M tokens for Kimi K2.5. That is roughly 8.3x on output cost alone. Kimi K2.5 gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for Claude Opus 4.5.

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 Opus 4.5 and Kimi K2.5
CategoryClaude Opus 4.5ΔKimi K2.5
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.569.5Margin→ 24.4Kimi K2.593.9
CodingClaude Opus 4.571.7Margin← 12.3Kimi K2.559.4
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.569.9Margin→ 8.6Kimi K2.578.5
AgenticClaude Opus 4.562.6Margin← 7.6Kimi K2.555.0
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.564.4Margin← 3.4Kimi K2.561.0
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.585.7Margin← 3.4Kimi K2.582.3
MathClaude Opus 4.557.5Margin→ 3.1Kimi K2.560.6
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.558.1Margin← 1.2Kimi K2.556.9

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.5B · Kimi K2.5

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 59.3%B 50.8%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 8.5
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 59.3%; Kimi K2.5 scored 50.8%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark.

  2. MMMU-Pro

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 70.6%B 78.5%
    Winner: Kimi K2.5Δ 7.9
    MMMU-Pro: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 70.6%; Kimi K2.5 scored 78.5%. Kimi K2.5 wins this benchmark.

  3. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 20.690%B 27.900%
    Winner: Kimi K2.5Δ 7.2
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.5 scored 20.690%; Kimi K2.5 scored 27.900%. Kimi K2.5 wins this benchmark.

  4. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 57.1%B 50.7%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 6.4
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 57.1%; Kimi K2.5 scored 50.7%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark.

  5. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 80.9%B 76.8%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 4.1
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 80.9%; Kimi K2.5 scored 76.8%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.5Kimi K2.5Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.5$5 input / $25 outputKimi K2.5$0.6 input / $3 outputKimi K2.5 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.546 tok/sKimi K2.545 tok/sClaude Opus 4.5 has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.51.01 sKimi K2.52.38 sClaude Opus 4.5 reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.5200KKimi K2.5256KKimi K2.5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Kimi K2.5Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.3%50.8%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 66.3%—Not comparable
OSWorldSource 66.3%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 59.6%52.3%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
QwenClawBenchSource 52.3%54.3%Kimi K2.5 leads
τ³-bench resultsSource 70.2%65.7%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
VITA-BenchSource 23.3%—Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource 26.4%14.4%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
ToolathlonSource 43.5%27.8%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
MCP AtlasSource 42.3%29.5%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
MCP-TasksSource 71.8%59.1%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
WideResearchSource 76.4%72.7%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
CyberGymSource 50.6%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 86.3%95.9%Kimi K2.5 leads
Gert LabsSource 64.23%45.88%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
JobBenchSource 32.3%8.7%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
BrowseCompSource —60.6%Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource —77.1%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —11.5%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —14.0%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —21.7%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —25.4%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1009Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Kimi K2.5Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.9%76.8%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
LiveCodeBench v6Source 84.8%85.0%Kimi K2.5 leads
SWE-bench ProSource 57.1%50.7%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
SWE MultilingualSource 77.5%73%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
NL2RepoSource 43.2%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 47.0%49.0%Kimi K2.5 leads
SWE-bench Verified*Source —70.8%Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource —58.5%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource —77.2%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —48.7%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —46.8%Not comparable
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Kimi K2.5Result
LongBench v2Source 64.4%61%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AI-NeedleSource 74%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 65.3%65.3%Tie
CritPtSource 0.3%3.1%Kimi K2.5 leads
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Kimi K2.5Result
GPQASource 87%87.6%Kimi K2.5 leads
SuperGPQASource 70.6%69.2%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
MMLU-ProSource 89.5%87.1%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
MMLU-ReduxSource 96.6%—Not comparable
C-EvalSource 92.2%—Not comparable
HLESource 30.8%30.1%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 34.7%35.4%Kimi K2.5 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 81.0%87.9%Kimi K2.5 leads
AA-HLESource 12.9%29.4%Kimi K2.5 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -3.9%-8.1%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 40.7%34.3%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 75.4%64.6%Kimi K2.5 leads
AA MMLU-ProSource 88.9%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —87.6%Not comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source —87.1%Not comparable
MathKimi K2.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Kimi K2.5Result
AIME26Source 95.1%95.8%Kimi K2.5 leads
HMMT Feb 2025Source 92.9%95.4%Kimi K2.5 leads
HMMT Nov 2025Source 93.3%91.1%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
HMMT Feb 2026Source 85.3%87.1%Kimi K2.5 leads
MMAnswerBenchSource 84.0%81.8%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 20.690%27.900%Kimi K2.5 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 4.167%4.200%Kimi K2.5 leads
AIME 2025Source —96.1%Not comparable
AIME25 (Arcee)Source —96.3%Not comparable
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Kimi K2.5Result
MMLU-ProXSource 85.7%82.3%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
NOVA-63Source 56.7%56.0%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
MultimodalKimi K2.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Kimi K2.5Result
MMMU-ProSource 70.6%78.5%Kimi K2.5 leads
MathVisionSource 74.3%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 68.5%—Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource 84.4%86.6%Kimi K2.5 leads
ScreenSpot ProSource 45.7%—Not comparable
V*Source 67.0%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 71.2%75.4%Kimi K2.5 leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12791282Kimi K2.5 leads
Video-MMESource —87.4%Not comparable
MMVUSource —80.4%Not comparable
Inst. FollowingKimi K2.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Kimi K2.5Result
IFEvalSource 90.9%93.9%Kimi K2.5 leads
IFBenchSource 58%—Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 43.0%70.2%Kimi K2.5 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (9)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or Kimi K2.5?

Claude Opus 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 64.22 to 59.66. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 59.3% and 50.8%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Kimi K2.5?

Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 58.1 versus 56.9. Inside this category, AA-HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.5 or Kimi K2.5?

Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 71.7 versus 59.4. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.5 or Kimi K2.5?

Kimi K2.5 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 60.6 versus 57.5. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for reasoning, Claude Opus 4.5 or Kimi K2.5?

Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 64.4 versus 61. Inside this category, LongBench v2 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Kimi K2.5?

Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 62.6 versus 55. Inside this category, JobBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Kimi K2.5?

Kimi K2.5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.5 versus 69.9. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for instruction following, Claude Opus 4.5 or Kimi K2.5?

Kimi K2.5 has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 93.9 versus 69.5. Inside this category, AA-IFBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multilingual tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Kimi K2.5?

Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for multilingual tasks in this comparison, averaging 85.7 versus 82.3. Inside this category, MMLU-ProX 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.

Claude Opus 4.5
API / mo$22,500
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Kimi K2.5
API / mo$2,700
Self-host / mo$5,221
Break-even132M/day
Model the full break-even

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.