# Claude Opus 5 vs Kimi K2.7 Code

> Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 43.3 on the Noometry Index. Kimi K2.7 Code costs 5.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-5-vs-kimi-k2-7-code
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 18

## Summary

- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5 scores higher in 5 categories and Kimi K2.7 Code in 0 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 5 leads 77.2 to 39.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GBAEval: 79.6% for Claude Opus 5 and 0.9% for Kimi K2.7 Code.
- Kimi K2.7 Code is cheaper at $0.95 / $4 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 5.
- Claude Opus 5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
- Kimi K2.7 Code has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Moonshot AI |
| Noometry Index | 67.8 | 43.3 |
| Rank | 4 | 94 |
| Context | 1M | 262K |
| Input $/M | $5 | $0.95 |
| Output $/M | $25 | $4 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 5: 67.5 (#5)
- Kimi K2.7 Code: 42.9 (#95)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSWE | 73.6% | 30.5% |
| FrontierCode | 53.4% | 30.1% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1691 | 1473 |
| SciCode | 56.4% | 47.5% |
| WeirdML | 91.8% | 54.1% |
| ALE-Bench | 2,165 | 886.23 |
| CursorBench | 46.6% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 52% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1534 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 5: 55.6 (#1)
- Kimi K2.7 Code: 24.0 (#122)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 65.8% | 37.6% |
| GBAEval | 79.6% | 0.9% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 11,182 | 5,083 |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 31.4% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 48.7% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 35% | — |
| BALROG | 63.4% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 5: 77.2 (#4)
- Kimi K2.7 Code: 39.0 (#61)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 80.6% | 57.9% |
| CritPt | 29.1% | 10% |
| Chess Puzzles | 42% | 21% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.78 | 149.97 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90.4% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 94.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 45.7% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 59% | — |
| DTBench | 97.9% | — |
| LMCA | 64.5% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 48.8% |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.12 | — |

## Math

- Claude Opus 5: 86.2 (#8)
- Kimi K2.7 Code: 52.9 (#48)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 85.6% | 54% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 73.2% | 12.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.9% | 95.6% |
| ProofBench | 99% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1531 | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 5: 66.8 (#9)
- Kimi K2.7 Code: 53.5 (#57)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.9% | 87.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 59.9% | 36.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1557 | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 5: 50.8 (#8)
- Kimi K2.7 Code: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1319 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 30.4% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 60.8% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1516 | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 5: 58.8 (#4)
- Kimi K2.7 Code: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1501 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1574 | — |
| LMArena French | 1519 | — |
| LMArena German | 1524 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1516 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1521 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1507 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1519 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#7)
- Kimi K2.7 Code: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | — |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 5: 46.5 (#21)
- Kimi K2.7 Code: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1515 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#1)
- Kimi K2.7 Code: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1507 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1491 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2133 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1385 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 5 better than Kimi K2.7 Code?

Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 43.3 on the Noometry Index. Kimi K2.7 Code costs 5.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5 or Kimi K2.7 Code?

Kimi K2.7 Code is cheaper. It lists at $0.95 per million input tokens and $4 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 5 lists at $5 and $25.

### Is Claude Opus 5 or Kimi K2.7 Code better for coding?

Claude Opus 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.5 versus 42.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 5 does, with 1M tokens against 262K.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5 and Kimi K2.7 Code share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5 has 57 scored results on Noometry and Kimi K2.7 Code has 19.