Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Kimi K2.5

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 35 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

68.59/100
Margin
8.9pts
← winning
Kimi K2.5
Moonshot AI
59.66/100
3 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.6 #16 (Supported); Kimi K2.5 #54 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.6 and Kimi K2.5 share 35 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 11 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.6; 28 to Kimi K2.5.

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
35
Claude Opus 4.6 only
11
Kimi K2.5 only
28
Comparable categories
5 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Kimi K2.5 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 35 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 BenchAlign aggregate, 68.59 to 59.66. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 4.6's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 73 against 55. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SuperGPQA, 95% to 69.2%. Kimi K2.5 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 $0.60 input / $3.00 output per 1M tokens for Kimi K2.5. That is roughly 8.3x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.6 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Kimi K2.5.

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 4.6 and Kimi K2.5
CategoryClaude Opus 4.6ΔKimi K2.5
MathClaude Opus 4.636.3Margin→ 24.3Kimi K2.560.6
AgenticClaude Opus 4.673.0Margin← 18.0Kimi K2.555.0
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.669.1Margin← 12.2Kimi K2.556.9
CodingClaude Opus 4.668.1Margin← 8.7Kimi K2.559.4
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.677.3Margin→ 1.2Kimi K2.578.5
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapKimi K2.561.0
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapKimi K2.582.3
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapKimi K2.593.9

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.6B · Kimi K2.5

  1. SuperGPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 95%B 69.2%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 25.8
    SuperGPQA: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 95%; Kimi K2.5 scored 69.2%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  2. BrowseComp

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 83.7%B 60.6%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 23.1
    BrowseComp: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 83.7%; Kimi K2.5 scored 60.6%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  3. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 53%B 30.1%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 22.9
    HLE: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 53%; Kimi K2.5 scored 30.1%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  4. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 22.900%B 4.200%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 18.7
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Opus 4.6 scored 22.900%; Kimi K2.5 scored 4.200%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  5. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 65.4%B 50.8%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 14.6
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 65.4%; Kimi K2.5 scored 50.8%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.6Kimi K2.5Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 outputKimi K2.5$0.6 input / $3 outputKimi K2.5 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.640 tok/sKimi K2.545 tok/sKimi K2.5 has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.61.78 sKimi K2.52.38 sClaude Opus 4.6 reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.61MKimi K2.5256KClaude Opus 4.6 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Kimi K2.5Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 65.4%50.8%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
BrowseCompSource 83.7%60.6%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 72.7%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 84.8%95.9%Kimi K2.5 leads
Claw-EvalSource 70.4%52.3%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
DeepSearchQASource 73.7%77.1%Kimi K2.5 leads
CyberGymSource 66.6%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 61.85%45.88%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
ResearchClawBenchSource 19.9%14.0%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
JobBenchSource 36.7%8.7%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
QwenClawBenchSource —54.3%Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource —65.7%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —14.4%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —27.8%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —29.5%Not comparable
MCP-TasksSource —59.1%Not comparable
WideResearchSource —72.7%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —11.5%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —21.7%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —25.4%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1009Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Kimi K2.5Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.8%76.8%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
SWE-bench Verified*Source 75.6%70.8%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
LiveCodeBench ProSource 70.7%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 53.4%50.7%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
SWE-RebenchSource 65.3%58.5%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
React Native EvalsSource 84.1%77.2%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Vibe Code BenchSource 57.57%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 45.7%49.0%Kimi K2.5 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 26.9%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench v6Source —85.0%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —73%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —48.7%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —46.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Kimi K2.5Result
AA-LCRSource 58.3%65.3%Kimi K2.5 leads
CritPtSource 2.8%3.1%Kimi K2.5 leads
LongBench v2Source —61%Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Kimi K2.5Result
GPQASource 91.3%87.6%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
GPQA-DSource 89.2%87.6%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
SuperGPQASource 95%69.2%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
MMLU-ProSource 82%87.1%Kimi K2.5 leads
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source 89.1%87.1%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
HLESource 53%30.1%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%35.4%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 84.0%87.9%Kimi K2.5 leads
AA-HLESource 18.6%29.4%Kimi K2.5 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 3.5%-8.1%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.2%34.3%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 76.0%64.6%Kimi K2.5 leads
MathKimi K2.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Kimi K2.5Result
AIME25 (Arcee)Source 99.8%96.3%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 40.700%27.900%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 22.900%4.200%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AIME 2025Source —96.1%Not comparable
AIME26Source —95.8%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2025Source —95.4%Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source —91.1%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —87.1%Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource —81.8%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Kimi K2.5Result
MMLU-ProXSource —82.3%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —56.0%Not comparable
MultimodalKimi K2.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Kimi K2.5Result
MMMU-ProSource 77.3%78.5%Kimi K2.5 leads
ERQASource 51.6%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 83.1%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source 64.8%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 72.5%75.4%Kimi K2.5 leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13281282Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Video-MMESource —87.4%Not comparable
MMVUSource —80.4%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —86.6%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Kimi K2.5Result
AA-IFBenchSource 44.6%70.2%Kimi K2.5 leads
IFEvalSource —93.9%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (6)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Kimi K2.5?

Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 68.59 to 59.66. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SuperGPQA, where the scores are 95% and 69.2%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Kimi K2.5?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.1 versus 56.9. Inside this category, SuperGPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.6 or Kimi K2.5?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 68.1 versus 59.4. Inside this category, React Native Evals is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.6 or Kimi K2.5?

Kimi K2.5 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 60.6 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 K2.5?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73 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 4.6 or Kimi K2.5?

Kimi K2.5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.5 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.

Claude Opus 4.6
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.