Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Kimi K2.6

Kimi K2.6 leads Claude Opus 4.5 on coding, 52.1 to 44.0 on the Vibe Coding Index, and Kimi K2.6 costs 6.3x less per output token ($4.00 vs $25.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 80 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Claude Opus 4.5 Replace Kimi K2.6
Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic
Coding
44.0
Overall
55.7
Output $/M
$25.00
35
Kimi K2.6Moonshot AI
Coding
52.1
Overall
60.5
Output $/M
$4.00
45
vs boards won of 80 shared

Claude Opus 4.5 or Kimi K2.6: which to pick

Pick Kimi K2.6 for coding: it scores 52.1 on the Vibe Coding Index against 44.0 for Claude Opus 4.5.

Pick Claude Opus 4.5 for work measured by SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) or Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Model AClaude Opus 4.5Anthropic44.0/1003 independent benchmarks$1.37 per solved taskModel BKimi K2.6Moonshot AI52.1/1003 independent benchmarks$0.35 per solved task
Shared results
80
Claude Opus 4.5 only
28
Kimi K2.6 only
29
Like-for-like categories
8 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 4.5 44.0 from 3 benchmarks, Kimi K2.6 52.1 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Math, 12.9 points apart on average over 6 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3: Claude Opus 4.5 34.4% against Kimi K2.6 57.2%, 22.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Claude Opus 4.5 $25.00 against Kimi K2.6 $4.00 per million output tokens, 6.3x apart.
Context window
Claude Opus 4.5 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 4.5BarsKimi K2.6Ties
Coding55
Intelligence11
Agentic work33
Reasoning47
Math15
Knowledge66
Web design17
General1411
All shared boards3545
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index55
Coding benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.5 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Kimi K2.6Leader
SWE-bench Verified79.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
SWE-bench (full test set)52.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
SWE-bench Multilingual70.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
LMArena WebDev14941509Kimi K2.6
AA Coding IndexNot measured61.8Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)83.7%86.8%Kimi K2.6
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)76.4%76.2%Claude Opus 4.5
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)20.6%37.9%Kimi K2.6
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
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)87.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
SciCodeNot measured51.5%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)47.0%43.9%Claude Opus 4.5
Terminal-Bench63.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
GSO-Bench26.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
WeirdML63.7%55.9%Claude Opus 4.5
Cybench82.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
ALE-BenchNot measured1092.7Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Text: coding15031489Claude Opus 4.5
LMArena Text: software and IT14831484Kimi K2.6
LMArena WebDev: React14781505Kimi K2.6
LMArena WebDev: HTML15101485Claude Opus 4.5
LMArena WebDev: from an imageNot measured1521Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
Intelligence benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.5 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Kimi K2.6Leader
AA Intelligence Index29.127.0Claude Opus 4.5
Epoch Capabilities Index150.1150.9Kimi K2.6
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index33
Agentic work benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.5 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Kimi K2.6Leader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured20.5Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building web apps11591268Kimi K2.6
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps11561155Claude Opus 4.5
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps11891156Claude Opus 4.5
Design Arena: agents building Android apps11761161Claude Opus 4.5
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 Telecom89.5%95.9%Kimi K2.6
METR time horizons75.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
Remote Labor Index3.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
GDPval45.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
OSWorld 2.0Not measured4.6%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
BALROG43.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
DeepResearch Bench54.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
OSWorld66.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
Vending-Bench 2$4,967$6,205Kimi K2.6
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)77.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index47
Reasoning benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.5 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Kimi K2.6Leader
GPQA Diamond85.9%89.1%Kimi K2.6
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)83.0%86.3%Kimi K2.6
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)86.6%91.1%Kimi K2.6
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)30.1%37.5%Kimi K2.6
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)86.0%90.8%Kimi K2.6
ARC-AGI80.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
ARC-AGI-237.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
SimpleBench62.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
Chess puzzles14.0%20.0%Kimi K2.6
Mystery game puzzles22.0%18.0%Claude Opus 4.5
EBR-bench14.3%2.4%Claude Opus 4.5
VPCT40.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14761470Claude Opus 4.5
LMArena Text: expert14871491Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14821471Claude Opus 4.5
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1298Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1310Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index15
Math benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.5 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Kimi K2.6Leader
AIME95.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)95.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
AA Math Index91.3Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)91.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
OTIS Mock AIME86.1%96.1%Kimi K2.6
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 334.4%57.2%Kimi K2.6
FrontierMath, tier 44.9%25.6%Kimi K2.6
ProofBench36.0%16.0%Claude Opus 4.5
LMArena Text: math14631474Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: mathematical work14681480Kimi K2.6
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index66
Knowledge benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.5 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Kimi K2.6Leader
MMLU Pro87.3%87.6%Kimi K2.6
LegalBench (Vals AI)84.6%84.7%Kimi K2.6
CaseLaw (Vals AI)62.6%61.2%Claude Opus 4.5
CorpFin (Vals AI)65.1%66.7%Kimi K2.6
TaxEval (Vals AI)74.9%74.7%Claude Opus 4.5
MortgageTax (Vals AI)68.7%65.8%Claude Opus 4.5
MedQA (Vals AI)95.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)49.2%40.1%Claude Opus 4.5
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)89.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
SimpleQA Verified45.7%34.9%Claude Opus 4.5
GeoBench75.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: science14541468Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14441457Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: legal and government14591462Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: business and finance14481445Claude Opus 4.5
FACTS Benchmark Suite43.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index17
Web design benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.5 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Kimi K2.6Leader
Design Arena: websites12471268Kimi K2.6
Design Arena: UI components12351263Kimi K2.6
Design Arena: game dev12281250Kimi K2.6
Design Arena: data viz12431249Kimi K2.6
Design Arena: 3D12131267Kimi K2.6
Design Arena: all code categories12421271Kimi K2.6
Design Arena: SVG11801181Kimi K2.6
Design Arena: ASCII art11901165Claude Opus 4.5
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1411
General benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.5 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Kimi K2.6Leader
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)Not measured56.6%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
SAGE (Vals AI)52.1%50.2%Claude Opus 4.5
MedScribe (Vals AI)85.3%78.2%Claude Opus 4.5
Vals Multimodal IndexNot measured56.4%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
IFBench58.0%76.0%Kimi K2.6
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)77.3%81.0%Kimi K2.6
DTBench89.9%90.9%Kimi K2.6
LMCA44.5%37.3%Claude Opus 4.5
CL-bench21.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.5 measured
Furniture assembly28.3%21.7%Claude Opus 4.5
ExploitBenchNot measured18.4%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Text14511455Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: instruction following14781451Claude Opus 4.5
LMArena Text: creative writing14451434Claude Opus 4.5
LMArena VisionNot measured1282Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Text: English14611460Claude Opus 4.5
LMArena Text: non-English14381446Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: Chinese14701520Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: German14491451Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: Japanese14171443Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: Korean14241427Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: French14711471Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: Spanish14571464Kimi K2.6
LMArena Text: Russian14471446Claude Opus 4.5
LMArena Text: Polish14391438Claude Opus 4.5
LMArena Text: multi-turn14661453Claude Opus 4.5
LMArena Text: longer queries14791468Claude Opus 4.5
LMArena Text: writing and language14521439Claude Opus 4.5
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14341428Claude Opus 4.5
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 Document14621451Claude Opus 4.5
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 4.5 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Kimi 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 4.5$0.018Fits 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 4.5$0.325Fits 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 4.5$1.25Exceeds 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 4.5 and Kimi K2.6
SpecificationAnthropic Claude Opus 4.5MoonshotAI Kimi K2.6
MakerAnthropicMoonshot AI
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedNovember 24, 2025April 20, 2026
Context window200K262K
Input $/Mtok$5.00$0.95
Output $/Mtok$25.00$4.00
Coding index44.052.1
Independent measurements behind it33
Cost per solved task$1.37$0.35
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than Kimi K2.6 for coding?

Pick Kimi K2.6 for coding: it scores 52.1 on the Vibe Coding Index against 44.0 for Claude Opus 4.5. Pick Claude Opus 4.5 for work measured by SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) or Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.5 or Kimi K2.6?

Claude Opus 4.5 costs $5.00 per million input tokens and $25.00 per million output tokens; Kimi K2.6 costs $0.95 and $4.00. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, Claude Opus 4.5 costs $1.37 and Kimi K2.6 $0.35.

Which has the bigger context window, Claude Opus 4.5 or Kimi K2.6?

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

How many benchmarks is the Claude Opus 4.5 vs Kimi K2.6 comparison based on?

80 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Claude Opus 4.5's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks 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

Embed this comparison on your site

Free under CC BY 4.0, while the source link stays visible. Preview the frame · Terms and other embeds

<iframe src="https://llmbenchmark.ai/embed/compare/claude-opus-4-5-vs-kimi-k2-6" title="Claude Opus 4.5 vs Kimi K2.6, LLMBenchmark.ai" width="100%" height="360" style="border:0;max-width:100%" loading="lazy"></iframe>
<p style="font:13px/1.4 sans-serif;margin:6px 0 0">Source: <a href="https://llmbenchmark.ai/compare/claude-opus-4-5-vs-kimi-k2-6">LLMBenchmark.ai, Claude Opus 4.5 vs Kimi K2.6</a></p>