Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Claude Opus 4.1 vs Kimi K2.6

Kimi K2.6 leads Claude Opus 4.1 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 27.0 to 22.8, and Kimi K2.6 costs 18.8x less per output token ($4.00 vs $75.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 59 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Claude Opus 4.1 Replace Kimi K2.6
Claude Opus 4.1Anthropic
Coding
No data
Overall
50.2
Output $/M
$75.00
5
Kimi K2.6Moonshot AI
Coding
52.1
Overall
60.5
Output $/M
$4.00
54
vs boards won of 59 shared

Claude Opus 4.1 or Kimi K2.6: which to pick

Only Kimi K2.6 has a coding score, 52.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; Claude Opus 4.1 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Claude Opus 4.1 for work measured by Mystery game puzzles or EBR-bench, where it leads.

Model AClaude Opus 4.1AnthropicNot benchmarked1 independent benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BKimi K2.6Moonshot AI52.1/1003 independent benchmarks$0.35 per solved task
Shared results
59
Claude Opus 4.1 only
14
Kimi K2.6 only
50
Like-for-like categories
7 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Claude Opus 4.1 not benchmarked, Kimi K2.6 52.1 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Math, 22.0 points apart on average over 5 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3: Claude Opus 4.1 12.6% against Kimi K2.6 57.2%, 44.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Claude Opus 4.1 $75.00 against Kimi K2.6 $4.00 per million output tokens, 18.8x apart.
Context window
Claude Opus 4.1 takes 200K tokens, Kimi K2.6 262K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryClaude Opus 4.1BarsKimi K2.6Ties
Coding06
Intelligence02
Reasoning26
Math05
Knowledge27
Web design17
General021
All shared boards554
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index06
Coding benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Kimi K2.6Leader
LMArena WebDev13901509Kimi K2.6
AA Coding IndexNot measured61.8Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)66.5%86.8%Kimi K2.6
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured76.2%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured37.9%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured27.8%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)Not measured0.0%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured53.6%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
SciCodeNot measured51.5%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured43.9%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Terminal-Bench38.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
WeirdML45.9%55.9%Kimi K2.6
Cybench42.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
ALE-BenchNot measured1092.7Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Text: coding14791489Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: software and IT14561484Kimi K2.6
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1505Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML13991485Kimi K2.6
LMArena WebDev: from an imageNot measured1521Only Kimi K2.6 measured
SciCode4.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Intelligence benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Kimi K2.6Leader
AA Intelligence Index22.827.0Kimi K2.6
Epoch Capabilities Index144.1150.9Kimi K2.6
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Kimi K2.6Leader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured20.5Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building web appsNot measured1268Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack appsNot measured1155Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile appsNot measured1156Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android appsNot measured1161Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot gamesNot measured1120Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building gamesNot measured1141Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Design Arena: HTML slidesNot measured1135Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slidesNot measured1103Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Design Arena: spreadsheetsNot measured1276Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured44.9%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured12.4%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured15.9%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured57.9%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured95.9%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
METR time horizons66.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
GDPval43.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
OSWorld 2.0Not measured4.6%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
DeepResearch Bench48.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$6,205Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index26
Reasoning benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Kimi K2.6Leader
GPQA Diamond76.3%89.1%Kimi K2.6
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)77.5%86.3%Kimi K2.6
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured91.1%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured37.5%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)77.3%90.8%Kimi K2.6
SimpleBench60.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured20.0%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Mystery game puzzles21.0%18.0%Claude Opus 4.1
EBR-bench7.9%2.4%Claude Opus 4.1
VPCT35.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14421470Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: expert14381491Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14511471Kimi K2.6
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1298Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1310Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Math benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Kimi K2.6Leader
AIME78.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)95.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)94.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
OTIS Mock AIME68.9%96.1%Kimi K2.6
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 312.6%57.2%Kimi K2.6
FrontierMath, tier 42.4%25.6%Kimi K2.6
ProofBenchNot measured16.0%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Text: math14311474Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: mathematical work14341480Kimi K2.6
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index27
Knowledge benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Kimi K2.6Leader
MMLU Pro87.9%87.6%Claude Opus 4.1
LegalBench (Vals AI)83.5%84.7%Kimi K2.6
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured61.2%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured66.7%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)73.7%74.7%Kimi K2.6
MortgageTax (Vals AI)61.1%65.8%Kimi K2.6
MedQA (Vals AI)93.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)47.2%40.1%Claude Opus 4.1
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured34.9%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Text: science14221468Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14161457Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: legal and government14211462Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: business and finance14061445Kimi K2.6
FACTS Benchmark Suite40.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index17
Web design benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Kimi K2.6Leader
Design Arena: websites11761268Kimi K2.6
Design Arena: UI components11621263Kimi K2.6
Design Arena: game dev11711250Kimi K2.6
Design Arena: data viz11661249Kimi K2.6
Design Arena: 3D11521267Kimi K2.6
Design Arena: all code categories11701271Kimi K2.6
Design Arena: SVG11521181Kimi K2.6
Design Arena: ASCII art11671165Claude Opus 4.1
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index021
General benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Kimi K2.6Leader
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)Not measured56.6%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
SAGE (Vals AI)31.4%50.2%Kimi K2.6
MedScribe (Vals AI)73.9%78.2%Kimi K2.6
Vals Multimodal IndexNot measured56.4%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
IFBenchNot measured76.0%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured81.0%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
DTBench80.0%90.9%Kimi K2.6
LMCA37.1%37.3%Kimi K2.6
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)84.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Furniture assemblyNot measured21.7%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
ExploitBenchNot measured18.4%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Text14191455Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: instruction following14351451Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: creative writing14121434Kimi K2.6
LMArena VisionNot measured1282Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Text: English14331460Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: non-English14051446Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: Chinese14271520Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: German14131451Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: Japanese13771443Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: Korean13811427Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: French14331471Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: Spanish14481464Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: Russian14221446Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: Polish14131438Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: multi-turn14441453Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: longer queries14551468Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: writing and language14181439Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13981428Kimi K2.6
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1287Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1346Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1291Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1280Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1273Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena DocumentNot measured1451Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Kimi K2.6Leader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Claude Opus 4.1$0.052Fits in one request
Kimi K2.6$0.0029Fits in one request

Kimi K2.6 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.1$0.975Fits in one request
Kimi K2.6$0.059Fits in one request

Kimi K2.6 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.1$3.75Exceeds the context window
Kimi K2.6$0.230Fits in one request

Kimi K2.6 costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Claude Opus 4.1 and Kimi K2.6
SpecificationAnthropic Claude Opus 4.1MoonshotAI Kimi K2.6
MakerAnthropicMoonshot AI
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedAugust 5, 2025April 20, 2026
Context window200K262K
Input $/Mtok$15.00$0.95
Output $/Mtok$75.00$4.00
Coding indexNot benchmarked52.1
Independent measurements behind it13
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.35
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than Kimi K2.6 for coding?

Only Kimi K2.6 has a coding score, 52.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; Claude Opus 4.1 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Claude Opus 4.1 for work measured by Mystery game puzzles or EBR-bench, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or Kimi K2.6?

Claude Opus 4.1 costs $15.00 per million input tokens and $75.00 per million output tokens; Kimi K2.6 costs $0.95 and $4.00. Cost per solved task is known for Kimi K2.6 only.

Which has the bigger context window, Claude Opus 4.1 or Kimi K2.6?

Kimi K2.6, with 262K tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks is the Claude Opus 4.1 vs Kimi K2.6 comparison based on?

59 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Claude Opus 4.1's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Kimi K2.6's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next