Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Kimi K2.6
Head-to-head evidence from 8 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.5 unranked; Kimi K2.6 #13
Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Kimi K2.6 share 8 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.5; 52 to Kimi K2.6.
Updated July 13, 2026- Shared results
- 8
- Claude Sonnet 4.5 only
- 4
- Kimi K2.6 only
- 52
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Kimi K2.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Sonnet 4.5 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 8 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
Kimi K2.6 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 74 to 60. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Kimi K2.6's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 67.1 against 11.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 13.495% to 38.966%. Claude Sonnet 4.5 does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.95 input / $4.00 output per 1M tokens for Kimi K2.6. That is roughly 3.8x on output cost alone. Kimi K2.6 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Sonnet 4.5 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Kimi K2.6 gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for Claude Sonnet 4.5.
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 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Δ | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Sonnet 4.511.2 | Margin→ 55.9 | Kimi K2.667.1 |
| Knowledge | Claude Sonnet 4.583.4 | Margin← 41.2 | Kimi K2.642.2 |
| Agentic | Claude Sonnet 4.555.4 | Margin→ 18.1 | Kimi K2.673.5 |
| Coding | Claude Sonnet 4.577.2 | Margin← 4.6 | Kimi K2.672.6 |
| Reasoning | Claude Sonnet 4.513.6 | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.6Not measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Sonnet 4.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K2.679.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 13.495%B 38.966%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 25.5FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 13.495%; Kimi K2.6 scored 38.966%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 50%B 66.7%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 16.7Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 50%; Kimi K2.6 scored 66.7%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
OSWorld-Verified
AgenticA 61.4%B 73.1%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 11.7OSWorld-Verified: Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 61.4%; Kimi K2.6 scored 73.1%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 4.167%B 14.580%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 10.4FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 4.167%; Kimi K2.6 scored 14.580%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 83.4%B 90.5%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 7.1GPQA: Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 83.4%; Kimi K2.6 scored 90.5%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Kimi K2.6 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.5$3 input / $15 output | Kimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 output | Kimi K2.6 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Sonnet 4.5Not available | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Sonnet 4.5Not available | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.5200K | Kimi K2.6256K | Kimi K2.6 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticKimi K2.6 wins24 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 50% | 66.7% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 61.4% | 73.1% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| VITA-BenchSource | 17.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 48.51% | 56.82% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| JobBenchSource | 27.7% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 83.2% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 50% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 55.9% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 92.5% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 30.3% | Not comparable |
| Tau2-TelecomSource | — | 95.9% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 34.5% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1190 | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 28.5% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 18.0% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 4.6% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 809 | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | — | 19.6% | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 38.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 0.0% | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 31.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 20.6% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.5 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 77.2% | 80.2% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 89.6% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 89.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 58.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 76.7% | 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 |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 61.8% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | — | 43.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 53.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | — | 65.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.5 wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 83.4% | 90.5% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 90.5% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 34.7% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 44.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 91.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 35.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 6.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 32.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 39.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
MathKimi K2.6 wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME 2025Source | 87% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 13.495% | 38.966% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 4.167% | 14.580% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AIME26Source | — | 96.4% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 86.0% | Not comparable |
Multimodal7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1232 | 1318 | Kimi K2.6 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 |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 79.4% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 76.0% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 74 to 60. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 13.495% and 38.966%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Kimi K2.6?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 83.4 versus 42.2. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Kimi K2.6?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 72.6. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 67.1 versus 11.2. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.5 versus 55.4. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 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.
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.