Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs Kimi K3
Head-to-head evidence from 27 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 K3 #5 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 5 and Kimi K3 share 27 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 52 results are unique to Claude Opus 5; 30 to Kimi K3.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 27
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 52
- Kimi K3 only
- 30
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Kimi K3 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 27 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 3 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 79.98. 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 knowledge, where it averages 64.7 against 61. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 64.7% to 56%. Kimi K3 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 $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens for Kimi K3.
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 K3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 566.9 | Margin→ 11.6 | Kimi K378.5 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 564.7 | Margin← 3.7 | Kimi K361.0 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 590.8 | Margin← 1.3 | Kimi K389.5 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 589.5 | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K3Not measured |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 590.4 | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K3Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 64.7%B 56%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 8.7HLE: Claude Opus 5 scored 64.7%; Kimi K3 scored 56%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
OfficeQA Pro
MultimodalA 66.9%B 63.3%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 3.6OfficeQA Pro: Claude Opus 5 scored 66.9%; Kimi K3 scored 63.3%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 90.8%B 91.2%Winner: Kimi K3Δ 0.4BrowseComp: Claude Opus 5 scored 90.8%; Kimi K3 scored 91.2%. Kimi K3 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 K3 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 5$5 input / $25 output | Kimi K3$3 input / $15 output | Kimi K3 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 5Not available | Kimi K3Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 5Not available | Kimi K3Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 5Not available | Kimi K31.05M | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 5 wins34 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierBench v0.1Source | 43.3% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 90.8% | 91.2% | Kimi K3 leads |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 95.0% | 95.0% | Tie |
| DRACOSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)Source | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 85.8% | 84.2% | 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 | 1686 | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Toolathlon-VerifiedSource | 80.6% | 73.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| 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% | 30.8% | Kimi K3 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 55.3% | 50.1% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 68.0% | 59.3% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 30.3% | 33.4% | Kimi K3 leads |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1720 | 1541 | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 89.1% | 85% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 88.3% | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | — | 52.9% | Not comparable |
| APEX-AgentsSource | — | 37.6% | Not comparable |
| SpreadsheetBench 2Source | — | 34.8% | Not comparable |
| DECK-BenchSource | — | 73.5% | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | — | 52.7% | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 45.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 94.6% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 41.3% | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 47.7% | Not comparable |
Coding17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 96% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 79.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 89.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultimodalSource | 59.4% | — | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | 68.8% | 67.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| 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% | 77.8% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| cursorBench32Source | 70.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 78.0% | 76.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 55.7% | 58.7% | Kimi K3 leads |
| FrontierSWESource | — | 81.2% | Not comparable |
| Kimi Code Bench v2Source | — | 72.9% | Not comparable |
| sweMarathonSource | — | 42% | Not comparable |
| PostTrain BenchSource | — | 36.6% | Not comparable |
| MLS-Bench LiteSource | — | 48.3% | Not comparable |
Reasoning5 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Opus 5 wins23 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 64.7% | 56% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 56.3% | 43.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| 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% | 57.1% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 93.2% | 93.5% | Kimi K3 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 52.6% | 44.3% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 31.3% | 18.4% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 54.2% | 46.0% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 50.1% | 50.9% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 93.5% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 93.5% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multilingual3 benchmarks
MultimodalKimi K3 wins22 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K3 | 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% | 63.3% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 84.7% | 80.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 81.6% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource | — | 83.4% | Not comparable |
| CharXiv w/o toolsSource | — | 84.8% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 91.3% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 94.3% | Not comparable |
| MathVision w/ PythonSource | — | 97.8% | Not comparable |
| BabyVision w/ PythonSource | — | 85.7% | Not comparable |
| ZeroBenchSource | — | 23.0% | Not comparable |
| ZeroBench w/ PythonSource | — | 41.0% | Not comparable |
| WorldVQA ForceAnswerSource | — | 51.0% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBenchSource | — | 91.1% | Not comparable |
| PerceptionBenchSource | — | 58.5% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1386 | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or Kimi K3?
Claude Opus 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 85.88 to 79.98. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 64.7% and 56%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Kimi K3?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 64.7 versus 61. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Kimi K3?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 90.8 versus 89.5. Inside this category, AA Briefcase is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Kimi K3?
Kimi K3 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.5 versus 66.9. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.