Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Kimi K2.5 Instant
Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 43.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 8 categories and Kimi K2.5 Instant in 1 category; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 57.8 to 29.7.
- Kimi K2.5 Instant has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.6 | Kimi K2.5 Instant | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Moonshot AI |
| Noometry Index | 58.2 | 43.6 |
| Released | 2026-02-04 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | — |
| Results tracked | 68 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 57.2 (#20), Kimi K2.5 Instant: 42.6 (#97)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Kimi K2.5 Instant |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1547 | 1404 |
| LMArena Coding | 1536 | 1484 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 78.7% | — |
| FrontierCode | 26.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 75.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 72% | — |
| GSO | 41.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 78% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 996.5 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.47 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4), Kimi K2.5 Instant: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Kimi K2.5 Instant |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 79.8% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 46.3% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 4.2% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 27.3% | — |
| Cybench | 93% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 55.3% | — |
| GBAEval | 44.1% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1253 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 78.9% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 8,018 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 57.8 (#23), Kimi K2.5 Instant: 29.7 (#90)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Kimi K2.5 Instant |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1527 | 1443 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 69.2% | — |
| SimpleBench | 67.6% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 83.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 94% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 17% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 7.6% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 80.6% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 12.7% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 25% | — |
| DTBench | 91.2% | — |
| LMCA | 55.8% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.24 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60 | — |
Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), Kimi K2.5 Instant: 39.4 (#105)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Kimi K2.5 Instant |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1519 | 1442 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 66% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 78.5% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 94.4% | — |
| ProofBench | 50% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 40.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 22.9% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), Kimi K2.5 Instant: 40.2 (#123)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Kimi K2.5 Instant |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1546 | 1440 |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.5% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 34.4% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 47% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.2% | — |
Multimodal Kimi K2.5 Instant leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), Kimi K2.5 Instant: 40.2 (#50)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Kimi K2.5 Instant |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1316 | 1254 |
| Furniture Assembly | 28.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1507 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), Kimi K2.5 Instant: 52.0 (#94)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Kimi K2.5 Instant |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1489 | 1406 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1551 | 1449 |
| LMArena French | 1513 | 1403 |
| LMArena German | 1502 | 1413 |
| LMArena Korean | 1464 | 1378 |
| LMArena Russian | 1497 | 1404 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1510 | 1447 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1484 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), Kimi K2.5 Instant: 75.3 (#65)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Kimi K2.5 Instant |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1523 | 1430 |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), Kimi K2.5 Instant: 43.9 (#83)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Kimi K2.5 Instant |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1520 | 1435 |
| CL-bench | 20.7% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 17% | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), Kimi K2.5 Instant: 60.6 (#95)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Kimi K2.5 Instant |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1503 | 1420 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1505 | 1381 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1513 | 1427 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1809 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1223 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Kimi K2.5 Instant?
Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 43.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Kimi K2.5 Instant better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 42.6 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and Kimi K2.5 Instant share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Kimi K2.5 Instant has 18.