Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs Kimi K2.6
Head-to-head evidence from 22 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 5 #1 (Estimated); Kimi K2.6 #61 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 5 and Kimi K2.6 share 22 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 57 results are unique to Claude Opus 5; 28 to Kimi K2.6.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 22
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 57
- Kimi K2.6 only
- 28
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Kimi K2.6 only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 22 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 4 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 5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 85.88 to 58.73. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 89.5 against 64.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 64.7% to 34.7%. Kimi K2.6 does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Claude Opus 5 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.
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 5 | Δ | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Opus 589.5 | Margin← 25.1 | Kimi K2.664.4 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 564.7 | Margin← 22.5 | Kimi K2.642.2 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 590.8 | Margin← 17.3 | Kimi K2.673.5 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 566.9 | Margin→ 12.9 | Kimi K2.679.8 |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 590.4 | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.6Not measured |
| Math | Claude Opus 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.667.1 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 64.7%B 34.7%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 30HLE: Claude Opus 5 scored 64.7%; Kimi K2.6 scored 34.7%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 79.2%B 58.6%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 20.6SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 5 scored 79.2%; Kimi K2.6 scored 58.6%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 96%B 80.2%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 15.8SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 5 scored 96%; Kimi K2.6 scored 80.2%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 90.8%B 83.2%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 7.6BrowseComp: Claude Opus 5 scored 90.8%; Kimi K2.6 scored 83.2%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.6 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 5$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 5Not available | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 5Not available | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 5Not available | Kimi K2.6256K | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 5 wins33 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierBench v0.1Source | 43.3% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 90.8% | 83.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 95.0% | 92.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| DRACOSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)Source | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 70.6% | 4.6% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| MCP AtlasSource | 85.8% | 55.9% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| MCP-Atlas claim coverageSource | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 23.58% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 93.74% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 11.7% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 94.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1861 | 1188 | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Toolathlon-VerifiedSource | 80.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass@3Source | 87.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass³Source | 73.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified avg. turnsSource | 23.5 turns | — | Not comparable |
| AutomationBenchSource | 26.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 55.3% | 30.3% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 68.0% | 34.4% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 30.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1720 | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 66.7% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 73.1% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 50% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 95.9% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 28.5% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 56.82% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 18.0% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 5 wins17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 96% | 80.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 79.2% | 58.6% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 89.5% | 76.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE MultimodalSource | 59.4% | — | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | 68.8% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 53.4% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource | 63.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBench (episode 1)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBenchSource | 93.0% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 70.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 78.0% | 61.8% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 55.7% | 53.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 89.6% | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 52.2% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 66.7% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 37.89% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | — | 47.6% | Not comparable |
Reasoning5 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Opus 5 wins23 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 64.7% | 34.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 56.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (raw)Source | 67.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (length-adjusted)Source | 57.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | 59.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench Professional (raw)Source | 73.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)Source | 90.1% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)Source | 49.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SpatialBench VerifiedSource | 72.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SingleCellBenchSource | 60.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProteinGym HardSource | 47.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Protein DesignSource | 42.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Organic chemistry V2Source | 61.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (troubleshooting)Source | 61.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (understanding)Source | 78.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 60.7% | 44.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 93.2% | 91.1% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 52.6% | 35.9% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 31.3% | 6.4% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 54.2% | 32.8% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 50.1% | 39.3% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 90.5% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 90.5% | Not comparable |
Math10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| IMO 2026Source | 42/42 | — | Not comparable |
| RiemannBench (no tools)Source | 60.0% | — | Not comparable |
| RiemannBench (tools)Source | 79.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (no tools)Source | 90.8% | — | Not comparable |
| ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (tools)Source | 91.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | — | 96.4% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 86.0% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | — | 38.966% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | — | 14.580% | Not comparable |
Multilingual3 benchmarks
MultimodalKimi K2.6 wins15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chartography (no tools)Source | 29.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Chartography (tools)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)Source | 0.366 | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)Source | 0.821 | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (no tools)Source | 83.4% | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (tools)Source | 85.5% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQASource | 78.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQA ProSource | 66.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 84.7% | 79.4% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 79.4% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource | — | 80.1% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 87.4% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 96.9% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1306 | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 76.0% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or Kimi K2.6?
Claude Opus 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 85.88 to 58.73. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 64.7% and 34.7%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Kimi K2.6?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 64.7 versus 42.2. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 5 or Kimi K2.6?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.5 versus 64.4. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Kimi K2.6?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 90.8 versus 73.5. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79.8 versus 66.9. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro 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.