whichllmmodel
Back to Dashboard
Anthropic

Claude Haiku 4.5

VS
Moonshot AI (Kimi)

kimi-k2.6

✍️ Analysis by:the whichllmmodel Editorial Team|📅 Updated: June 2026

Decision Recommendation

👑 Editorial Verdict: kimi-k2.6 strictly dominates Claude Haiku 4.5 across all major dimensions. It is not only more cost-effective (blended cost of $1.71 vs $2.00 per 1M tokens) but also delivers superior coding accuracy (58.6% vs 39.5% on SWE-bench) and faster generation speeds (193 tps vs 98.5 tps). Unless you have platform lock-in, kimi-k2.6 is the clear and optimal choice for all development workloads.

Model Specs

Claude Haiku 4.5

Benchmarks & Scores

Coding (swe-bench-pro)
39.5%
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
73%

Cost & Performance

Cost (per 1M tokens)
$2.00Input: $1.00 | Output: $5.00
Speed
98.5 tps
Context Window
200k tokens
Model Specs

kimi-k2.6

Benchmarks & Scores

Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+19.1%)
58.6%
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+17.5%)
90.5%

Cost & Performance

Cost (per 1M tokens)1.2x cheaper
$1.71Input: $0.95 | Output: $4.00
Speed2.0x faster
193 tps
Context WindowLarger
262.14k tokens
Read our data collection methodology

Frequently Asked Questions

kimi-k2.6 is cheaper than Claude Haiku 4.5. kimi-k2.6 has a blended cost of $1.71/1M tokens, which is about 1.2x cheaper than Claude Haiku 4.5 at $2.00/1M tokens.

kimi-k2.6 is faster than Claude Haiku 4.5. kimi-k2.6 generates 193 tokens per second (tps) compared to Claude Haiku 4.5 which generates 98.5 tokens per second.

kimi-k2.6 is better for coding tasks. It scores 58.6% on coding evaluations (swe-bench-pro) compared to Claude Haiku 4.5 which scores 39.5%.

Want to customize weights or add more models?

Open our interactive dashboard where you can adjust your priority levels for speed, budget, or accuracy slider-bars and watch model rankings calculate dynamically.

Customize in Interactive Dashboard