Claude Opus 4.7 vs Kimi K2 Thinking
At a Glance
| Compare | Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic |  Kimi K2 ThinkingMoonshot AI |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5 | #11 of 4679.0 score · 3/3 sources · complete | UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | #37 of 44$0.286 per LiveBench case | UnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5 | #20 of 3852.7 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 | $0.60Openrouter ↗ · Sep 23, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $25.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 | $2.50Openrouter ↗ · Sep 23, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 1,000K | 262K |
| Model facts checked | Sep 3, 2026View model evidence → | Aug 28, 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 4.7 | Kimi-K2-Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| ToneBench2026-09-11-10-task-4ef099199c9c · overall_score · unverified | 85.49100% of row best · points · Claude Opus 4.7 · 4,840 output tokens / case | 78.5592% of row best · points · Kimi K2 Thinking · 7,821 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 0 benchmark winsNo 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 4.7 | Kimi-K2-Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | Moonshot AI |
| Family | Claude 4 | Kimi K2 Thinking |
| Model | Claude Opus 4.7 | Kimi-K2-Thinking |
| Version | Claude Opus 4.7 | Kimi-K2-Thinking |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-04-16 | 2025-11-06 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-01-01 | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,000K | 262K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | 1T |
| Active parameters | Unknown | 32B |
| License | Unknown | other |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
| Provider access | Anthropic (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard) | Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, tools |
Claude Opus 4.7 Capabilities
Kimi K2 Thinking Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic | vs |  Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic | vs |  DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic | vs | Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic | vs | Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Kimi K2 Thinking FAQs
Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Kimi K2 Thinking better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Opus 4.7 and Kimi K2 Thinking, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or Kimi K2 Thinking?+
Claude Opus 4.7 is $5.00 and Kimi K2 Thinking is $0.60 per million tokens, so Kimi K2 Thinking is cheaper on this metric. Claude Opus 4.7 is $25.00 and Kimi K2 Thinking is $2.50 per million tokens, so Kimi K2 Thinking is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Claude Opus 4.7 or Kimi K2 Thinking?+
Claude Opus 4.7 has the larger sourced context window. Claude Opus 4.7 supports 1,000K and Kimi K2 Thinking supports 262K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Opus 4.7 or Kimi K2 Thinking?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Claude Opus 4.7 or Kimi K2 Thinking be self-hosted?+
Kimi K2 Thinking is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Claude Opus 4.7 is not marked open weight; Kimi K2 Thinking is open weight.
Can Claude Opus 4.7 and Kimi K2 Thinking understand images?+
Claude Opus 4.7 is documented with image input; Kimi K2 Thinking is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Claude Opus 4.7 or Kimi K2 Thinking?+
Kimi K2 Thinking has the larger sourced maximum output: Claude Opus 4.7 supports 128K and Kimi K2 Thinking supports 131K output tokens.
Do Claude Opus 4.7 and Kimi K2 Thinking support reasoning and tool use?+
Claude Opus 4.7: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Kimi K2 Thinking: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Opus 4.7 or Kimi K2 Thinking?+
Claude Opus 4.7 has 2 sourced provider routes; Kimi K2 Thinking has 2, a tie.
Which offers better value, Claude Opus 4.7 or Kimi K2 Thinking?+
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.