Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Kimi K2 (Jul 2025)

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 41.2 on the Noometry Index. Kimi K2 (Jul 2025) costs 10.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 29 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #19 Confirmed

Kimi K2 (Jul 2025) Moonshot AI

41.2

Rank #140 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 29 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 9 categories and Kimi K2 (Jul 2025) in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 53.8 to 23.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Terminal-Bench: 80.2% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 35.7% for Kimi K2 (Jul 2025).
  • Kimi K2 (Jul 2025) is cheaper at $0.57 / $2.30 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.7.
  • Claude Opus 4.7 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
  • Kimi K2 (Jul 2025) has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7Kimi K2 (Jul 2025)
ProviderAnthropicMoonshot AI
Noometry Index58.341.2
Released2026-04-142025-07-12
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M262K
Max output128K262K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.57
Output $ / M tokens$25$2.30
Results tracked6642

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 59.6 (#13), Kimi K2 (Jul 2025): 42.4 (#102)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Kimi K2 (Jul 2025)
GSO44.1%4.9%
WeirdML76.4%42.8%
LMArena Coding15181399
ALE-Bench1,323597.5
SWE-bench Verified83.5%—
FrontierCode38.5%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—63.4%
Aider Polyglot—59.1%
LMArena WebDev1558—
SciCode54.5%—
MirrorCode31.1%—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), Kimi K2 (Jul 2025): 32.4 (#64)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Kimi K2 (Jul 2025)
Terminal-Bench80.2%35.7%
APEX-Agents49.2%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—59.1%
OSWorld 2.018.2%—
τ²-bench Banking40.2%—
PostTrainBench28.6%—
ExploitBench26.5%—
GBAEval43.8%—
GDP.pdf21%—
LMArena Search1233—
METR Time Horizons—59.2%
Vending-Bench 210,937—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29), Kimi K2 (Jul 2025): 23.3 (#179)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Kimi K2 (Jul 2025)
SimpleBench61.7%26.3%
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%64.4%
LMArena Hard Prompts15061384
Epoch Capabilities Index156.25146.01
ForecastBench60.360.2
ARC-AGI-275.8%—
NYT Connections (extended)39%—
ARC-AGI-193.5%—
CritPt12%—
Chess Puzzles30%—
Thematic Generalization72.8%—
EBR-Bench19%—
Mystery Game Puzzles28%—
DTBench94.7%—
LMCA52.2%—

Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), Kimi K2 (Jul 2025): 42.7 (#83)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Kimi K2 (Jul 2025)
LMArena Math14991397
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)43.8%21.4%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%0%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%—
ProofBench54%—
Omni-MATH—65.4%

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23), Kimi K2 (Jul 2025): 37.3 (#157)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Kimi K2 (Jul 2025)
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%17.9%
LMArena Expert15211365
GPQA Diamond90.2%—
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%—
SimpleQA Verified51.7%—
MMLU-Pro—81.9%
Confabulations—20.4%
GPQA (HELM)—65.3%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), Kimi K2 (Jul 2025): —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Kimi K2 (Jul 2025)
LMArena Vision1316—
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%—
Furniture Assembly33.3%—
LMArena Document1495—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), Kimi K2 (Jul 2025): 49.6 (#130)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Kimi K2 (Jul 2025)
LMArena Non-English14801372
LMArena Chinese15311415
LMArena French15031379
LMArena German14951387
LMArena Japanese14721349
LMArena Korean14641325
LMArena Russian14941385
LMArena Spanish14951386

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), Kimi K2 (Jul 2025): 71.1 (#156)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Kimi K2 (Jul 2025)
LMArena Instruction Following14981348
IFEval—85%

Long Context Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), Kimi K2 (Jul 2025): 41.2 (#145)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Kimi K2 (Jul 2025)
LMArena Longer Query15051353
Fiction.LiveBench—66.7%
CL-bench—17.6%

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), Kimi K2 (Jul 2025): 62.3 (#78)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Kimi K2 (Jul 2025)
LMArena Text14901380
LMArena Creative Writing14861350
EQ-Bench Creative Writing19141666
LMArena Multi-Turn15051371
Short-Story Creative Writing—85.6%
WildBench—86.2%
EQ-Bench 41311—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Kimi K2 (Jul 2025)?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 41.2 on the Noometry Index. Kimi K2 (Jul 2025) costs 10.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or Kimi K2 (Jul 2025)?

Kimi K2 (Jul 2025) is cheaper. It lists at $0.57 per million input tokens and $2.30 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Kimi K2 (Jul 2025) better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 42.4 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.7 does, with 1M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and Kimi K2 (Jul 2025) share?

29 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Kimi K2 (Jul 2025) has 42.

Related comparisons

Go deeper