Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 45.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher in 8 categories and Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 64.7 to 32.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 98.3% for Claude Opus 4.8 and 83.1% for Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo.
- Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.8 | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Moonshot AI |
| Noometry Index | 60.7 | 45.8 |
| Released | 2026-05-28 | 2025-11-06 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | — |
| Results tracked | 65 | 21 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 59.9 (#12), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 38.4 (#178)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1556 | 1322 |
| LMArena Coding | 1490 | 1454 |
| DeepSWE | 59% | — |
| FrontierCode | 46.5% | — |
| SciCode | 53.5% | — |
| GSO | 47.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 82.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,564 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#11), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 48.9% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 20.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 8.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 39.7% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 50.2% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 33.8% | — |
| GBAEval | 70.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1204 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,787 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 64.7 (#16), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 32.5 (#75)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 34% | 20% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1482 | 1428 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 72.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 64.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 88.8% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 91.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 92.5% | — |
| CritPt | 20.9% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 23.5% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 28.6% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 36% | — |
| DTBench | 94.9% | — |
| LMCA | 57.5% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 87.5% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.14 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 158.21 | — |
| ForecastBench | 59.9 | — |
Math Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 78.4 (#13), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 47.4 (#68)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.3% | 83.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1487 | 1429 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 80% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 56.1% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 91.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 69% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 47.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 31.3% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 61.3 (#29), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 50.9 (#69)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 91% | 84.2% |
| LMArena Expert | 1502 | 1439 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 53% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 42.9 (#26), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1294 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 14.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 42.5% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1475 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 55.2 (#33), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 51.4 (#109)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1450 | 1398 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 1456 |
| LMArena French | 1481 | 1425 |
| LMArena German | 1472 | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1440 | 1357 |
| LMArena Korean | 1432 | 1330 |
| LMArena Russian | 1474 | 1391 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1466 | 1406 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 77.4 (#24), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 74.0 (#109)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1476 | 1403 |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#35), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 43.2 (#102)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1483 | 1415 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 72.0 (#16), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 60.0 (#104)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1461 | 1415 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1374 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1476 | 1414 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1840 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1281 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo?
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 45.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 4.8 or Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 38.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.8 and Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo share?
21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.8 has 65 scored results on Noometry and Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo has 21.