Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Kimi K2.7 Code

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 43.3 on the Noometry Index. Kimi K2.7 Code costs 5.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic

58.2

Rank #20 Confirmed

Kimi K2.7 Code Moonshot AI

43.3

Rank #94 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 5 categories and Kimi K2.7 Code in 0 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 51.1 to 24.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GBAEval: 44.1% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 0.9% for Kimi K2.7 Code.
  • Kimi K2.7 Code is cheaper at $0.95 / $4 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.6.
  • Claude Opus 4.6 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
  • Kimi K2.7 Code has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.6Kimi K2.7 Code
ProviderAnthropicMoonshot AI
Noometry Index58.243.3
Released2026-02-042026-06-12
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M262K
Max output128K262K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.95
Output $ / M tokens$25$4
Results tracked6819

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.2 (#20), Kimi K2.7 Code: 42.9 (#95)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Kimi K2.7 Code
FrontierCode26.6%30.1%
LMArena WebDev15471473
WeirdML78%54.1%
ALE-Bench996.5886.23
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
DeepSWE—30.5%
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.6%—
SWE-bench Multilingual72%—
SciCode—47.5%
GSO41.2%—
LMArena Coding1536—
AlgoTune1.47—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4), Kimi K2.7 Code: 24.0 (#122)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Kimi K2.7 Code
APEX-Agents46.3%37.6%
GBAEval44.1%0.9%
Vending-Bench 28,0185,083
Terminal-Bench79.8%—
Remote Labor Index4.2%—
τ²-bench Banking27.3%—
Cybench93%—
DeepResearch Bench55.3%—
LMArena Search1253—
METR Time Horizons78.9%—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.8 (#23), Kimi K2.7 Code: 39.0 (#61)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Kimi K2.7 Code
SimpleBench67.6%57.9%
Chess Puzzles17%21%
Epoch Capabilities Index155.24149.97
ARC-AGI-269.2%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)92.1%—
ARC-AGI-194%—
CritPt—10%
EnigmaEval7.6%—
Thematic Generalization80.6%—
EBR-Bench12.7%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1527—
Mystery Game Puzzles25%—
DTBench91.2%—
LMCA55.8%—
Surface Evolver Bench—48.8%
ForecastBench60—

Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), Kimi K2.7 Code: 52.9 (#48)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Kimi K2.7 Code
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%54%
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%12.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%95.6%
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions78.5%—
ProofBench50%—
LMArena Math1519—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)40.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), Kimi K2.7 Code: 53.5 (#57)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Kimi K2.7 Code
GPQA Diamond90.5%87.9%
SimpleQA Verified47%36.5%
Humanity's Last Exam34.4%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.2%—
LMArena Expert1546—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), Kimi K2.7 Code: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Kimi K2.7 Code
LMArena Vision1316—
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1507—

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), Kimi K2.7 Code: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Kimi K2.7 Code
LMArena Non-English1489—
LMArena Chinese1551—
LMArena French1513—
LMArena German1502—
LMArena Japanese1484—
LMArena Korean1464—
LMArena Russian1497—
LMArena Spanish1510—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), Kimi K2.7 Code: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Kimi K2.7 Code
LMArena Instruction Following1523—

Long Context Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), Kimi K2.7 Code: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Kimi K2.7 Code
CL-bench20.7%—
CL-bench Life17%—
LMArena Longer Query1520—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), Kimi K2.7 Code: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Kimi K2.7 Code
LMArena Text1503—
LMArena Creative Writing1505—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1809—
EQ-Bench 41223—
LMArena Multi-Turn1513—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Kimi K2.7 Code?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 43.3 on the Noometry Index. Kimi K2.7 Code costs 5.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or Kimi K2.7 Code?

Kimi K2.7 Code is cheaper. It lists at $0.95 per million input tokens and $4 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Kimi K2.7 Code better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 42.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.6 does, with 1M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and Kimi K2.7 Code share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Kimi K2.7 Code has 19.

Related comparisons

Go deeper