Model comparison
Claude 3 Opus vs Kimi K2.6
Kimi K2.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.7 to 29.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 3 Opus scores higher in 1 category and Kimi K2.6 in 9 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Kimi K2.6 leads 57.0 to 14.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 4.7% for Claude 3 Opus and 96.1% for Kimi K2.6.
- Kimi K2.6 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude 3 Opus | Kimi K2.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Moonshot AI |
| Noometry Index | 29.5 | 47.7 |
| Released | 2024-02-29 | 2026-04-20 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 262K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.95 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $4 |
| Results tracked | 46 | 51 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Kimi K2.6 leads
Claude 3 Opus: 32.9 (#267), Kimi K2.6: 50.7 (#43)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 19.2% | 55.9% |
| LMArena Coding | 1264 | 1488 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 76.7% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1509 |
| SciCode | — | 53.5% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 45.5% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 38.6% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 57.4% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,093 |
| HumanEval+ | 77.4% | — |
| MBPP+ | 73.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude 3 Opus leads
Claude 3 Opus: 24.6 (#116), Kimi K2.6: 21.9 (#137)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|
| OSWorld 2.0 | — | 4.6% |
| Cybench | 10% | — |
| ExploitBench | — | 18.4% |
| GBAEval | — | 0.9% |
| GDP.pdf | — | 12% |
| METR Time Horizons | 29.5% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 6,205 |
Reasoning Kimi K2.6 leads
Claude 3 Opus: 14.6 (#324), Kimi K2.6: 40.5 (#55)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 5% | 26% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1245 | 1470 |
| DTBench | 61.6% | 90.9% |
| LMCA | 17% | 37.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 126.91 | 151.05 |
| SimpleBench | 23.5% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 87.2% |
| CritPt | — | 8% |
| EnigmaEval | 0.8% | — |
| EBR-Bench | — | 2.4% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 40.6% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 18% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 57.9% | — |
| ForecastBench | 58.4 | — |
| LiveBench | 49.2% | — |
| WinoGrande | 88.5% | — |
Math Kimi K2.6 leads
Claude 3 Opus: 14.8 (#299), Kimi K2.6: 57.0 (#41)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 4.7% | 96.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1273 | 1475 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 57.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 25.6% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 72.9% |
| ProofBench | — | 16% |
| LiveBench Math | 43.6% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 37.5% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 39% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 14.6% |
Knowledge Kimi K2.6 leads
Claude 3 Opus: 24.5 (#267), Kimi K2.6: 54.0 (#54)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 47.2% | 90.8% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 12.6% | 34.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1223 | 1491 |
| Confabulations | 22.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.8% |
| MMLU | 84.6% | — |
Multimodal Kimi K2.6 leads
Claude 3 Opus: 27.1 (#116), Kimi K2.6: 31.6 (#103)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1023 | 1283 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 3.9% |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 21.7% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1451 |
Multilingual Kimi K2.6 leads
Claude 3 Opus: 41.4 (#207), Kimi K2.6: 54.9 (#37)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1258 | 1446 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1248 | 1521 |
| LMArena French | 1275 | 1471 |
| LMArena German | 1258 | 1450 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1204 | 1443 |
| LMArena Korean | 1187 | 1427 |
| LMArena Russian | 1280 | 1446 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1246 | 1464 |
Instruction Following Kimi K2.6 leads
Claude 3 Opus: 64.1 (#228), Kimi K2.6: 76.3 (#43)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1248 | 1451 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 63.9% | — |
Long Context Kimi K2.6 leads
Claude 3 Opus: 38.2 (#202), Kimi K2.6: 44.9 (#52)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1259 | 1468 |
Writing & Preference Kimi K2.6 leads
Claude 3 Opus: 47.2 (#213), Kimi K2.6: 68.5 (#26)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1262 | 1455 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1235 | 1434 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1275 | 1453 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1725 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1202 |
| LiveBench Language | 50.4% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude 3 Opus better than Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.7 to 29.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude 3 Opus or Kimi K2.6 better for coding?
Kimi K2.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.7 versus 32.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude 3 Opus and Kimi K2.6 share?
26 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 3 Opus has 46 scored results on Noometry and Kimi K2.6 has 51.