Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs Kimi K2.7 Code
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 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 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5 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 reasoning, where Claude Opus 5 leads 77.2 to 39.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GBAEval: 79.6% for Claude Opus 5 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 5.
- Claude Opus 5 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 5 | Kimi K2.7 Code | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Moonshot AI |
| Noometry Index | 67.8 | 43.3 |
| Released | 2026-07-24 | 2026-06-12 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 262K |
| Max output | 128K | 262K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $0.95 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | $4 |
| Results tracked | 57 | 19 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 67.5 (#5), Kimi K2.7 Code: 42.9 (#95)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSWE | 73.6% | 30.5% |
| FrontierCode | 53.4% | 30.1% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1691 | 1473 |
| SciCode | 56.4% | 47.5% |
| WeirdML | 91.8% | 54.1% |
| ALE-Bench | 2,165 | 886.23 |
| CursorBench | 46.6% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 52% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1534 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 55.6 (#1), Kimi K2.7 Code: 24.0 (#122)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 65.8% | 37.6% |
| GBAEval | 79.6% | 0.9% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 11,182 | 5,083 |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 31.4% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 48.7% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 35% | — |
| BALROG | 63.4% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 77.2 (#4), Kimi K2.7 Code: 39.0 (#61)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 80.6% | 57.9% |
| CritPt | 29.1% | 10% |
| Chess Puzzles | 42% | 21% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.78 | 149.97 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90.4% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 94.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 45.7% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 59% | — |
| DTBench | 97.9% | — |
| LMCA | 64.5% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 48.8% |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.12 | — |
Math Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 86.2 (#8), Kimi K2.7 Code: 52.9 (#48)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 85.6% | 54% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 73.2% | 12.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.9% | 95.6% |
| ProofBench | 99% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1531 | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 66.8 (#9), Kimi K2.7 Code: 53.5 (#57)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.9% | 87.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 59.9% | 36.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1557 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 50.8 (#8), Kimi K2.7 Code: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1319 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 30.4% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 60.8% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1516 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 58.8 (#4), Kimi K2.7 Code: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1501 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1574 | — |
| LMArena French | 1519 | — |
| LMArena German | 1524 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1516 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1521 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1507 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1519 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#7), Kimi K2.7 Code: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 46.5 (#21), Kimi K2.7 Code: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1515 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#1), Kimi K2.7 Code: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1507 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1491 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2133 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1385 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5 better than Kimi K2.7 Code?
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 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 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5 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 5 lists at $5 and $25.
Is Claude Opus 5 or Kimi K2.7 Code better for coding?
Claude Opus 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.5 versus 42.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Opus 5 does, with 1M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5 and Kimi K2.7 Code share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5 has 57 scored results on Noometry and Kimi K2.7 Code has 19.