Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Kimi 3
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.6 #10; Kimi 3 unranked
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.6 and Kimi 3 share 0 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 48 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.6; 0 to Kimi 3.
Updated July 14, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- Claude Opus 4.6 only
- 48
- Kimi 3 only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Claude Opus 4.6 and Kimi 3 is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 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 does not have sourced benchmark coverage for Kimi 3 yet. This comparison is currently limited to metadata such as context window, reasoning mode, and pricing where available.
Claude Opus 4.6 has the larger context window at 1M, compared with null for Kimi 3.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.6 | Kimi 3 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 output | Kimi 3Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.640 tok/s | Kimi 3Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.61.78 s | Kimi 3Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.61M | Kimi 3Not available | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Kimi 3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 65.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 83.7% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 72.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Tau2-TelecomSource | 84.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 70.4% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 73.7% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 66.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 61.85% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 19.9% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 36.7% | — | Not comparable |
Coding10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Kimi 3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | 75.6% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | 70.7% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 53.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 65.3% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 84.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 57.57% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 48.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 45.7% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCodeSource | 26.9% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Kimi 3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 91.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 89.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 95% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 82% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 53% | — | Not comparable |
| 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% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 84.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 18.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 3.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 76.0% | — | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
Multimodal7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Kimi 3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 77.3% | — | Not comparable |
| 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% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1330 | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Kimi 3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 44.6% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Claude Opus 4.6 and Kimi 3 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 4.6 and Kimi 3 today?
Claude Opus 4.6: $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens Kimi 3: Pricing unavailable Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
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.