Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Kimi K2.7 Code

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

63.37/100
Margin
9.3pts
← winning
Kimi K2.7 Code
Moonshot AI
54.03/100
0 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #39 (Supported); Kimi K2.7 Code #92 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 and Kimi K2.7 Code share 13 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 46 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5; 10 to Kimi K2.7 Code.

Updated July 27, 2026
Shared results
13
Claude Opus 4.5 only
46
Kimi K2.7 Code only
10
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for Claude Opus 4.5 and Kimi K2.7 Code is coming soon on BenchLM.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 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 Opus 4.5 is priced at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.95 input / $4.00 output per 1M tokens for Kimi K2.7 Code. Kimi K2.7 Code has 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 K2.7 Code
CategoryClaude Opus 4.5ΔKimi K2.7 Code
AgenticClaude Opus 4.562.6MarginNo overlapKimi K2.7 CodeNot measured
CodingClaude Opus 4.571.7MarginNo overlapKimi K2.7 CodeNot measured
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.564.4MarginNo overlapKimi K2.7 CodeNot measured
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.558.1MarginNo overlapKimi K2.7 CodeNot measured
MathClaude Opus 4.557.5MarginNo overlapKimi K2.7 CodeNot measured
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.585.7MarginNo overlapKimi K2.7 CodeNot measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.569.9MarginNo overlapKimi K2.7 CodeNot measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.569.5MarginNo overlapKimi K2.7 CodeNot measured

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.5Kimi K2.7 CodeComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.5$5 input / $25 outputKimi K2.7 Code$0.95 input / $4 outputKimi K2.7 Code has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.546 tok/sKimi K2.7 CodeNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.51.01 sKimi K2.7 CodeNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.5200KKimi K2.7 Code256KKimi K2.7 Code lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Kimi K2.7 CodeResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.3%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 66.3%—Not comparable
OSWorldSource 66.3%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 59.6%—Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource 52.3%—Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource 70.2%—Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource 23.3%—Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource 26.4%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 43.5%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 42.3%76%Kimi K2.7 Code leads
MCP-TasksSource 71.8%—Not comparable
WideResearchSource 76.4%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 50.6%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 86.3%90.1%Kimi K2.7 Code leads
Gert LabsSource 64.23%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 32.3%—Not comparable
Kimi Claw 24/7Source —46.9%Not comparable
MCP Mark VerifiedSource —81.1%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —29.6%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —34.3%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1186Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Kimi K2.7 CodeResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.9%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench v6Source 84.8%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 57.1%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 77.5%—Not comparable
NL2RepoSource 43.2%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 47.0%47.5%Kimi K2.7 Code leads
Kimi Code Bench v2Source —62.0%Not comparable
ProgramBenchSource —53.6%Not comparable
MLS-Bench LiteSource —35.1%Not comparable
cursorBench32Source —49.7%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —60.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Kimi K2.7 CodeResult
LongBench v2Source 64.4%—Not comparable
AI-NeedleSource 74%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 65.3%66.3%Kimi K2.7 Code leads
CritPtSource 0.3%10.0%Kimi K2.7 Code leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Kimi K2.7 CodeResult
GPQASource 87%—Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 70.6%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 89.5%—Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource 96.6%—Not comparable
C-EvalSource 92.2%—Not comparable
HLESource 30.8%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 34.7%42.0%Kimi K2.7 Code leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 81.0%89.6%Kimi K2.7 Code leads
AA-HLESource 12.9%32.8%Kimi K2.7 Code leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -3.9%-10.7%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 40.7%38.6%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 75.4%80.3%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA MMLU-ProSource 88.9%—Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Kimi K2.7 CodeResult
AIME26Source 95.1%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2025Source 92.9%—Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source 93.3%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 85.3%—Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource 84.0%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 20.690%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 4.167%—Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Kimi K2.7 CodeResult
MMLU-ProXSource 85.7%—Not comparable
NOVA-63Source 56.7%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Kimi K2.7 CodeResult
MMMU-ProSource 70.6%—Not comparable
MathVisionSource 74.3%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 68.5%—Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource 84.4%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 45.7%—Not comparable
V*Source 67.0%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 71.2%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12721300Kimi K2.7 Code leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Kimi K2.7 CodeResult
IFEvalSource 90.9%—Not comparable
IFBenchSource 58%—Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 43.0%63.1%Kimi K2.7 Code leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Can I compare Claude Opus 4.5 and Kimi K2.7 Code 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 Opus 4.5 and Kimi K2.7 Code today?

Claude Opus 4.5: $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens Kimi K2.7 Code: $0.95 input / $4.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.

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 K2.7 Code
API / mo$3,713
Self-host / mo$18,221
Break-even326M/day
Model the full break-even

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 27, 2026

Know when it’s worth switching models

The model to choose, the cheaper alternative, and the release we would wait on.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.