AnthropicClaude Opus 5VSMoonshot AI (Kimi)kimi-k2.5
Our Take
We recommend Claude Opus 5 if you need peak intelligence for reasoning and coding tasks, or the 8.3x cheaper kimi-k2.5 to optimize your budget for high-volume pipelines. While Claude Opus 5 holds a clear performance lead, it carries a heavy price premium. Choose Claude Opus 5 for complex logic, or kimi-k2.5 for budget efficiency.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Coding Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the SWE-bench Pro benchmark. Claude Opus 5 scored 79.2%, while kimi-k2.5 scored 50.7%.
Reasoning Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. Claude Opus 5 scored 93.7%, while kimi-k2.5 scored 87.6%.
Cost Efficiency: kimi-k2.5 pricing ($0.6/M input, $3/M output) is 8.3x cheaper than Claude Opus 5 ($5/M input, $25/M output).
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+28.5%)
79.2%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+6.1%)
93.7%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$10.00Input: $5.00 | Output: $25.00Context WindowLarger
1.05M tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
50.7%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
87.6%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)8.3x cheaper
$1.20Input: $0.60 | Output: $3.00Context Window
262.14k tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Claude Opus 5 vs kimi-k2.5
kimi-k2.5 is cheaper than Claude Opus 5. kimi-k2.5 has a blended cost of $1.20/1M tokens, which is about 8.3x cheaper than Claude Opus 5 at $10.00/1M tokens.
Claude Opus 5 is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 79.2% on swe-bench-pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning) compared to kimi-k2.5 which scores 50.7%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Claude Opus 5 and kimi-k2.5.
Do you want to find a model for your constraints?
Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.