Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Kimi K2.6
Head-to-head evidence from 30 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.6 #12; Kimi K2.6 #13
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.6 and Kimi K2.6 share 30 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 18 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.6; 30 to Kimi K2.6.
Updated July 13, 2026- Shared results
- 30
- Claude Opus 4.6 only
- 18
- Kimi K2.6 only
- 30
- Comparable categories
- 5 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Kimi K2.6 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 30 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 5 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Opus 4.6 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 83 to 74. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.6's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 69.2 against 42.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 53% to 34.7%. Kimi K2.6 does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Claude Opus 4.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.95 input / $4.00 output per 1M tokens for Kimi K2.6. That is roughly 6.3x on output cost alone. Kimi K2.6 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.6 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Claude Opus 4.6 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Kimi K2.6.
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 Opus 4.6 | Δ | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Opus 4.636.3 | Margin→ 30.8 | Kimi K2.667.1 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.669.2 | Margin← 27.0 | Kimi K2.642.2 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.664.1 | Margin→ 8.5 | Kimi K2.672.6 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.677.3 | Margin→ 2.5 | Kimi K2.679.8 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.673.0 | Margin→ 0.5 | Kimi K2.673.5 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 53%B 34.7%Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 18.3HLE: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 53%; Kimi K2.6 scored 34.7%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 22.900%B 14.580%Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 8.3FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Opus 4.6 scored 22.900%; Kimi K2.6 scored 14.580%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 53.4%B 58.6%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 5.2SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 53.4%; Kimi K2.6 scored 58.6%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 77.3%B 79.4%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 2.1MMMU-Pro: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 77.3%; Kimi K2.6 scored 79.4%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 40.700%B 38.966%Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 1.7FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.6 scored 40.700%; Kimi K2.6 scored 38.966%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.6 | Kimi K2.6 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 output | Kimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 output | Kimi K2.6 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.640 tok/s | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.61.78 s | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.61M | Kimi K2.6256K | Claude Opus 4.6 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticKimi K2.6 wins24 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 65.4% | 66.7% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 83.7% | 83.2% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 72.7% | 73.1% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Tau2-TelecomSource | 84.8% | 95.9% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | 70.4% | 62.3% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| DeepSearchQASource | 73.7% | 92.5% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| CyberGymSource | 66.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 61.85% | 56.82% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 19.9% | 18.0% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| JobBenchSource | 36.7% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 50% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 55.9% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 30.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 34.5% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1190 | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 28.5% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 4.6% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 809 | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | — | 19.6% | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 38.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 0.0% | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 31.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 20.6% | Not comparable |
CodingKimi K2.6 wins18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.8% | 80.2% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | 75.6% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | 70.7% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 53.4% | 58.6% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 65.3% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 84.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 57.57% | 37.89% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 48.5% | 43.9% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 45.7% | 53.5% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| FrontierCodeSource | 26.9% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 89.6% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 89.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 76.7% | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 52.2% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 66.7% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | — | 47.6% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 61.8% | Not comparable |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | — | 65.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.6 wins16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 91.3% | 90.5% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 89.2% | 90.5% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| SuperGPQASource | 95% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 82% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 53% | 34.7% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 40% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | 14.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | 52.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 37.8% | 44.2% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 84.0% | 91.1% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 18.6% | 35.9% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 3.5% | 6.4% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.2% | 32.8% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 76.0% | 39.3% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
MathKimi K2.6 wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME25 (Arcee)Source | 99.8% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 40.700% | 38.966% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 22.900% | 14.580% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AIME26Source | — | 96.4% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 86.0% | Not comparable |
MultimodalKimi K2.6 wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 77.3% | 79.4% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| ERQASource | 51.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 83.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | 64.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1606 | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 72.5% | 79.4% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1337 | 1318 | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource | — | 80.1% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 87.4% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 96.9% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 44.6% | 76.0% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (6)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Kimi K2.6?
Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 83 to 74. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 53% and 34.7%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Kimi K2.6?
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.2 versus 42.2. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.6 or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.6 versus 64.1. Inside this category, Vibe Code Bench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.6 or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 67.1 versus 36.3. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.5 versus 73. Inside this category, DeepSearchQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79.8 versus 77.3. Inside this category, Design Arena Website 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
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.