Coding
Like-for-like- Claude Sonnet 5
- 64.2
- Supported · #13/183
- Kimi K2.6
- 51.6
- Supported · #62/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 9 vs 10 public rows
- Reading
- Claude Sonnet 5 leads · intervals overlap
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Kimi K2.6
Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Claude Sonnet 5 has the higher public score estimate, 70.76 versus 65.3, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
14 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Share or export
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Claude Sonnet 5
Claude Sonnet 5 leads on the public coding lane, 64.2 to 51.6, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Claude Sonnet 5
Claude Sonnet 5 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Kimi K2.6
Kimi K2.6 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Claude Sonnet 5
Claude Sonnet 5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Kimi K2.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Kimi K2.6
Kimi K2.6 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Kimi K2.6 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
9 Claude Sonnet 5 only
14 Shared
23 Kimi K2.6 only
- Shared results
- 14
- Claude Sonnet 5 only
- 9
- Kimi K2.6 only
- 23
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 / 8
2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Knowledge
Like-for-like- Claude Sonnet 5
- 67.1
- Supported · #20/181
- Kimi K2.6
- 61.7
- Supported · #34/181
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 5 public rows
- Reading
- Claude Sonnet 5 leads · intervals overlap
Agentic
Directional only- Claude Sonnet 5
- 66.0
- Supported · #12/151
- Kimi K2.6
- 46.1
- Estimated · #88/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 12 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Directional only- Claude Sonnet 5
- 77.5
- #13/48
- Kimi K2.6
- 64.0
- #26/48
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- 76.4
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Kimi K2.6
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- Not ranked
- Kimi K2.6
- 71.3
- #1/7
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 4 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- Not ranked
- Kimi K2.6
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- Not ranked
- Kimi K2.6
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Sonnet 5 | Kimi K2.6 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 64.2Supported · #13/183 | 51.6Supported · #62/183 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 9 vs 10 public rows | Claude Sonnet 5 leads · intervals overlap |
| Knowledge | 67.1Supported · #20/181 | 61.7Supported · #34/181 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 5 public rows | Claude Sonnet 5 leads · intervals overlap |
| Agentic | 66.0Supported · #12/151 | 46.1Estimated · #88/151 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 12 public rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 77.5#13/48 | 64.0#26/48 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 76.4Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 71.3#1/7 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 4 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
HLE
Knowledge
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
OSWorld-Verified
Agentic
CharXiv
Multimodal
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 5
- $0.007
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K2.6
- $0.00295
- Fits in one request
Kimi K2.6 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 5
- $0.13
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K2.6
- $0.0595
- Fits in one request
Kimi K2.6 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 5
- $0.18
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K2.6
- $0.249
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Claude Sonnet 5 has the lower modeled cost
Kimi K2.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Sonnet 5Kimi K2.6
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Sonnet 5
Kimi K2.6
256K
API model ID
Claude Sonnet 5
claude-sonnet-5
Anthropic model overviewKimi K2.6
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Sonnet 5
$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude API pricingKimi K2.6
Not published
Documented inputs
Claude Sonnet 5
text, image
Anthropic model overviewKimi K2.6
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Sonnet 5
Kimi K2.6
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Sonnet 5
Generally Available · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewKimi K2.6
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Sonnet 5
Reasoning
Kimi K2.6
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Sonnet 5
Proprietary
Kimi K2.6
Open Weight
License
Claude Sonnet 5
Proprietary
Kimi K2.6
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Sonnet 5
2026-06-30
Kimi K2.6
2026-04-20
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Claude Sonnet 5 has the higher public score estimate, 70.76 versus 65.3, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.13 vs $0.0595. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.18 vs $0.249.
- Context tradeoff
- Claude Sonnet 5 has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Claude Sonnet 5
API / mo$9,000
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Kimi K2.6
API / mo$3,713
Self-host / mo$18,221
Break-even326M/day
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence46 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 3.0
Claude Sonnet 514.6%SourceKimi K2.6—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 580.4%SourceKimi K2.666.7%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
BrowseComp
Claude Sonnet 584.7%SourceKimi K2.683.2%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
HLE w/ tools
Claude Sonnet 557.4%SourceKimi K2.6—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Sonnet 581.2%SourceKimi K2.673.1%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 574.5%SourceKimi K2.653.6%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
Toolathlon
Claude Sonnet 5—Kimi K2.650%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Sonnet 5—Kimi K2.655.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Sonnet 5—Kimi K2.662.3%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Claude Sonnet 5—Kimi K2.692.5%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
Claude Sonnet 5—Kimi K2.680.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Sonnet 5—Kimi K2.656.82%SourceNot directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Claude Sonnet 5—Kimi K2.618.0%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Sonnet 5—Kimi K2.64.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Sonnet 585.2%SourceKimi K2.680.2%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Sonnet 563.2%SourceKimi K2.658.6%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Sonnet 578.3%SourceKimi K2.676.7%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
SWE Multimodal
Claude Sonnet 528.1%SourceKimi K2.6—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 580.4%SourceKimi K2.666.7%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Sonnet 542.7%SourceKimi K2.6—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Claude Sonnet 561.5%SourceKimi K2.6—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 582.4%SourceKimi K2.686.8%SourceKimi K2.6 leads this result
SWE-bench (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 579.6%SourceKimi K2.676.2%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
LiveCodeBench v6
Claude Sonnet 5—Kimi K2.689.6%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
Claude Sonnet 5—Kimi K2.652.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Claude Sonnet 5—Kimi K2.637.89%SourceNot directly comparable
cursorBench31
Claude Sonnet 5—Kimi K2.647.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
HLE
Claude Sonnet 557.4%SourceKimi K2.634.7%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Claude Sonnet 543.2%SourceKimi K2.6—Not directly comparable
HLE-Verified
Claude Sonnet 531.0%SourceKimi K2.6—Not directly comparable
LABBench2
Claude Sonnet 580.1%SourceKimi K2.6—Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 588.9%SourceKimi K2.689.1%SourceKimi K2.6 leads this result
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 587.5%SourceKimi K2.687.6%SourceKimi K2.6 leads this result
GPQA
Claude Sonnet 5—Kimi K2.690.5%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA-D
Claude Sonnet 5—Kimi K2.690.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
AIME26
Claude Sonnet 5—Kimi K2.696.4%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Claude Sonnet 5—Kimi K2.692.7%SourceNot directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Claude Sonnet 5—Kimi K2.686.0%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Claude Sonnet 5—Kimi K2.638.966%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Claude Sonnet 5—Kimi K2.614.580%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
CharXiv
Claude Sonnet 588.3%SourceKimi K2.680.4%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
CharXiv w/o tools
Claude Sonnet 577%SourceKimi K2.6—Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Claude Sonnet 5—Kimi K2.679.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ Python
Claude Sonnet 5—Kimi K2.680.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision
Claude Sonnet 5—Kimi K2.687.4%SourceNot directly comparable
V*
Claude Sonnet 5—Kimi K2.696.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or Kimi K2.6?
Claude Sonnet 5 has the higher public score estimate, 70.76 versus 65.3, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 5 or Kimi K2.6?
Claude Sonnet 5 leads the public coding lane, 64.2 to 51.6, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 5 or Kimi K2.6?
Claude Sonnet 5 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 66 to 46.1. Kimi K2.6 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 5 or Kimi K2.6?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.007 on Claude Sonnet 5 and $0.00295 on Kimi K2.6; repository review costs $0.13 and $0.0595; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.18 and $0.249. Kimi K2.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Sonnet 5 or Kimi K2.6?
Claude Sonnet 5 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 4, 2026
Watch Claude Sonnet 5 vs Kimi K2.6
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.