AnthropicClaude Opus 5VSMoonshot AI (Kimi)kimi-k2.6
Our Take
We recommend Claude Opus 5 if you need peak intelligence for reasoning and coding tasks, or the 5.8x cheaper kimi-k2.6 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-k2.6 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-k2.6 scored 58.6%.
Reasoning Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. Claude Opus 5 scored 93.7%, while kimi-k2.6 scored 90.5%.
Cost Efficiency: kimi-k2.6 pricing ($0.95/M input, $4/M output) is 5.8x cheaper than Claude Opus 5 ($5/M input, $25/M output).
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+20.6%)
79.2%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+3.2%)
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)
58.6%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
90.5%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)5.8x cheaper
$1.71Input: $0.95 | Output: $4.00Context Window
262.14k tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Claude Opus 5 vs kimi-k2.6
kimi-k2.6 is cheaper than Claude Opus 5. kimi-k2.6 has a blended cost of $1.71/1M tokens, which is about 5.8x 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-k2.6 which scores 58.6%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Claude Opus 5 and kimi-k2.6.
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.