Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Kimi K2.7 Code

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

77.41/100
Margin
23.4pts
← winning
Kimi K2.7 Code
Moonshot AI
54.03/100
0 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #6 (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 4.8 and Kimi K2.7 Code share 18 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 37 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 5 to Kimi K2.7 Code.

Updated July 27, 2026
Shared results
18
Claude Opus 4.8 only
37
Kimi K2.7 Code only
5
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for Claude Opus 4.8 and Kimi K2.7 Code is coming soon on BenchLM.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 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 4.8 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. Claude Opus 4.8 has the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Kimi K2.7 Code.

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 4.8 and Kimi K2.7 Code
CategoryClaude Opus 4.8ΔKimi K2.7 Code
AgenticClaude Opus 4.880.3MarginNo overlapKimi K2.7 CodeNot measured
CodingClaude Opus 4.881.1MarginNo overlapKimi K2.7 CodeNot measured
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.872.1MarginNo overlapKimi K2.7 CodeNot measured
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.862.7MarginNo overlapKimi K2.7 CodeNot measured
MathClaude Opus 4.853.9MarginNo overlapKimi K2.7 CodeNot measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.877.0MarginNo overlapKimi K2.7 CodeNot measured

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.8Kimi K2.7 CodeComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.8$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 4.8Not availableKimi K2.7 CodeNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.8Not availableKimi K2.7 CodeNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.81MKimi K2.7 Code256KClaude Opus 4.8 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Kimi K2.7 CodeResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 84.3%—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource 93.1%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 83.4%—Not comparable
Finance Agent v2Source 53.9%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 15931186Claude Opus 4.8 leads
MCP AtlasSource 82.2%76%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
ToolathlonSource 59.9%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 72.97%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 47.2%29.6%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 94.4%90.1%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
GDPval-AASource 54.6%34.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
ResearchClawBenchSource 21.1%—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 20.6%—Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource 1346—Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 48.5%—Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 44.0%—Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 91.1%—Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 27.6%—Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource 58.3%—Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source 84.6%—Not comparable
Kimi Claw 24/7Source —46.9%Not comparable
MCP Mark VerifiedSource —81.1%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Kimi K2.7 CodeResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 88.6%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 69.2%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 84.4%—Not comparable
SWE MultimodalSource 38.4%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%—Not comparable
cursorBench31Source 58.4%—Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 62.3%49.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA Coding IndexSource 74.3%60.8%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 53.5%47.5%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 46.5%—Not comparable
Kimi Code Bench v2Source —62.0%Not comparable
ProgramBenchSource —53.6%Not comparable
MLS-Bench LiteSource —35.1%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Kimi K2.7 CodeResult
ARC-AGI-2Source 72.1%—Not comparable
ARC-AGI-3Source 1.5%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 67.7%66.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
CritPtSource 20.9%10.0%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Kimi K2.7 CodeResult
GPQASource 93.6%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 93.6%—Not comparable
HLESource 57.9%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 49.8%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 55.7%42.0%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.0%89.6%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-HLESource 45.7%32.8%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 27.4%-10.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 46.6%38.6%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 35.9%80.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Kimi K2.7 CodeResult
USAMO 2026Source 96.7%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 47.241%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 31.250%—Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Kimi K2.7 CodeResult
INCLUDESource 87.6%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Kimi K2.7 CodeResult
OfficeQA ProSource 66.2%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 87.9%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 89.9%—Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 80.5%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12681300Kimi K2.7 Code leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Kimi K2.7 CodeResult
AA-IFBenchSource 62.2%63.1%Kimi K2.7 Code leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Can I compare Claude Opus 4.8 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 4.8 and Kimi K2.7 Code today?

Claude Opus 4.8: $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 4.8
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.