Claude Opus 4.6 vs Kimi K2.7 Code
At a Glance
| Compare | Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic |  Kimi K2.7 CodeMoonshot AI |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5 | #12 of 4676.2 score · 3/3 sources · complete | UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | #33 of 44$0.241 per LiveBench case | #9 of 44$0.042 per LiveBench case |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5 | #19 of 3853.2 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 21, 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 | Sep 3, 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 4.6 | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader | 78.69100% of row best · percent · claude-opus-4-6-thinking-auto-high-effort · 9,651 output tokens / case | 71.4591% 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 4.6 | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | Moonshot AI |
| Family | Claude 4 | Kimi K2 7 |
| Model | Claude Opus 4.6 | Kimi K2.7 Code |
| Version | Claude Opus 4.6 | Kimi K2.7 Code |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-02-05 | 2026-06-11 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-05-01 | 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), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools | agents, chat, coding, reasoning, tools, vision |
Claude Opus 4.6 Capabilities
Kimi K2.7 Code Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All image comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs |  Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs |  DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs | Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs | Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Kimi K2.7 Code FAQs
Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Kimi K2.7 Code better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6 or Kimi K2.7 Code?+
Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6 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 4.6 or Kimi K2.7 Code?+
Claude Opus 4.6 has the larger sourced context window. Claude Opus 4.6 supports 1,000K and Kimi K2.7 Code supports 262K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6 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 4.6 is not marked open weight; Kimi K2.7 Code is open weight.
Can Claude Opus 4.6 and Kimi K2.7 Code understand images?+
Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6 or Kimi K2.7 Code?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Claude Opus 4.6 is 128K and Kimi K2.7 Code is —.
Do Claude Opus 4.6 and Kimi K2.7 Code support reasoning and tool use?+
Claude Opus 4.6: 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 4.6 or Kimi K2.7 Code?+
Claude Opus 4.6 has 1 sourced provider route; Kimi K2.7 Code has 4, so Kimi K2.7 Code has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Claude Opus 4.6 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.