Claude Opus 5 vs Kimi K2.7 Code
At a Glance
| Compare | Claude Opus 5Anthropic |  Kimi K2.7 CodeMoonshot AI |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5 | #3 of 4694.1 score · 3/3 sources · complete | UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | #39 of 44$0.371 per LiveBench case | #9 of 44$0.042 per LiveBench case |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5 | #13 of 3857.6 score · 3/3 sources · complete | UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $5.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 | $0.68Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $25.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 | $3.21Openrouter ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 1,000K | 262K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 28, 2026View model evidence → | Sep 3, 2026View model evidence → |
Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader | 83.44100% of row best · percent · claude-opus-5-max-effort · 14,826 output tokens / case | 71.4586% of row best · percent · kimi-k2.7-code · 13,007 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 1 benchmark winNo overall winner | 0 benchmark winsNo overall winner |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | Moonshot AI |
| Family | Claude 5 | Kimi K2 7 |
| Model | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.7 Code |
| Version | Claude Opus 5 | Kimi K2.7 Code |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-07-24 | 2026-06-11 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,000K | 262K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | 1T |
| Active parameters | Unknown | 32B |
| License | Unknown | modified-mit |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
| Provider access | Anthropic (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) | Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | agents, chat, coding, reasoning, tools, vision |
Claude Opus 5 Capabilities
Kimi K2.7 Code Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All image comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs | Claude Opus 5Anthropic | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Opus 5Anthropic | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Claude Opus 5Anthropic | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Opus 5Anthropic | vs |  Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 5Anthropic | vs |  DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 5Anthropic | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 5Anthropic | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 5Anthropic | vs | Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Claude Opus 5Anthropic | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 5Anthropic | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 5Anthropic | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 5Anthropic | vs | Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Claude Opus 5 vs Kimi K2.7 Code FAQs
Is Claude Opus 5 or Kimi K2.7 Code better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Opus 5 and Kimi K2.7 Code, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5 or Kimi K2.7 Code?+
Claude Opus 5 is $5.00 and Kimi K2.7 Code is $0.68 per million tokens, so Kimi K2.7 Code is cheaper on this metric. Claude Opus 5 is $25.00 and Kimi K2.7 Code is $3.21 per million tokens, so Kimi K2.7 Code is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Claude Opus 5 or Kimi K2.7 Code?+
Claude Opus 5 has the larger sourced context window. Claude Opus 5 supports 1,000K and Kimi K2.7 Code supports 262K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Opus 5 or Kimi K2.7 Code?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Claude Opus 5 or Kimi K2.7 Code be self-hosted?+
Kimi K2.7 Code is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Claude Opus 5 is not marked open weight; Kimi K2.7 Code is open weight.
Can Claude Opus 5 and Kimi K2.7 Code understand images?+
Claude Opus 5 is documented with image input; Kimi K2.7 Code is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Claude Opus 5 or Kimi K2.7 Code?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Claude Opus 5 is 128K and Kimi K2.7 Code is —.
Do Claude Opus 5 and Kimi K2.7 Code support reasoning and tool use?+
Claude Opus 5: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Kimi K2.7 Code: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Opus 5 or Kimi K2.7 Code?+
Claude Opus 5 has 3 sourced provider routes; Kimi K2.7 Code has 4, so Kimi K2.7 Code has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Claude Opus 5 or Kimi K2.7 Code?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.