Compare · ModelsLive · 3 picked · head to head
Claude Opus 4.5 vs Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Kimi K2.5
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins on 15/28 benchmarks
Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins 15 of 28 shared benchmarks. Leads in agentic · reasoning · math.
Category leads
agentic·Claude Sonnet 4.6reasoning·Claude Sonnet 4.6knowledge·Claude Opus 4.5math·Claude Sonnet 4.6coding·Claude Opus 4.5speed·Claude Sonnet 4.6arena·Claude Sonnet 4.6general·Claude Opus 4.5
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Claude Opus 4.5
#199 by perf·#6 by attention
Claude Sonnet 4.6
#163 by perf·#11 by attention
Kimi K2.5
#140 by perf·#15 by attention
Best value
Kimi K2.5
5.0x better value than Claude Sonnet 4.6
Claude Opus 4.5
2.7 pts/$
$15.00/M
Claude Sonnet 4.6
5.2 pts/$
$9.00/M
Kimi K2.5
25.7 pts/$
$1.93/M
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
Anthropic
$965.0B·Tier 1
Anthropic
$965.0B·Tier 1
Moonshot AI
$50.0B·Tier 1
Head to head
28 benchmarks · 3 models
Claude Opus 4.5Claude Sonnet 4.6Kimi K2.5
APEX-Agents
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +24.6
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
Claude Opus 4.5
18.4
Claude Sonnet 4.6
43.0
Kimi K2.5
14.4
ARC-AGI
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +6.5
ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization.
Claude Opus 4.5
80.0
Claude Sonnet 4.6
86.5
Kimi K2.5
65.3
ARC-AGI-2
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +22.8
ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data.
Claude Opus 4.5
37.6
Claude Sonnet 4.6
60.4
Kimi K2.5
11.8
Chess Puzzles
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +1.0
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
Claude Opus 4.5
12.0
Claude Sonnet 4.6
13.0
Kimi K2.5
12.0
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +4.5
FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning.
Claude Opus 4.5
20.7
Claude Sonnet 4.6
32.4
Kimi K2.5
27.9
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +6.8
FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning.
Claude Opus 4.5
4.2
Claude Sonnet 4.6
13.8
Kimi K2.5
7.0
GPQA diamond
Kimi K2.5 leads by +0.3
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
Claude Opus 4.5
81.4
Claude Sonnet 4.6
86.6
Kimi K2.5
86.9
OSWorld
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +5.8
OSWorld · tests AI agents on real-world computer tasks across operating systems, including web browsing, file management, and application use.
Claude Opus 4.5
66.3
Claude Sonnet 4.6
72.1
Kimi K2.5
63.3
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
Kimi K2.5 leads by +6.1
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
Claude Opus 4.5
86.1
Claude Sonnet 4.6
85.8
Kimi K2.5
92.2
PostTrainBench
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +0.9
Claude Opus 4.5
17.3
Claude Sonnet 4.6
16.4
Kimi K2.5
10.3
SimpleQA Verified
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +6.3
SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information.
Claude Opus 4.5
41.8
Claude Sonnet 4.6
35.5
Kimi K2.5
34.3
SWE-Bench verified
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +1.4
SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability.
Claude Opus 4.5
76.7
Claude Sonnet 4.6
75.2
Kimi K2.5
73.8
Terminal Bench
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +9.7
Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency.
Claude Opus 4.5
63.1
Claude Sonnet 4.6
53.4
Kimi K2.5
43.2
WeirdML
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +2.3
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
Claude Opus 4.5
63.7
Claude Sonnet 4.6
66.1
Kimi K2.5
45.6
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index
Kimi K2.5 leads by +18.2
Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?"
Claude Sonnet 4.6
40.8
Kimi K2.5
58.9
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +23.5
Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
63.0
Kimi K2.5
39.5
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +0.4
Claude Sonnet 4.6
47.2
Kimi K2.5
46.8
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +53.0
Claude Opus 4.5
1468.5
Claude Sonnet 4.6
1521.4
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +2.4
Claude Opus 4.5
1469.8
Claude Sonnet 4.6
1472.2
Cl Bench
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +1.8
Claude Opus 4.5
21.1
Kimi K2.5
19.3
DeepResearch Bench
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +0.1
DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses.
Claude Opus 4.5
54.8
Claude Sonnet 4.6
54.9
Dtbench
Claude Opus 4.5
83.1
Claude Sonnet 4.6
83.1
GeoBench
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +2.0
GeoBench · tests geographic knowledge and spatial reasoning across countries, landmarks, coordinates, and geopolitical understanding.
Claude Opus 4.5
75.0
Claude Sonnet 4.6
73.0
HLE
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +0.9
HLE (Humanity's Last Exam) · a reasoning benchmark designed to be the hardest public evaluation of AI. Questions span mathematics, physics, philosophy, and logic · curated to be at or beyond the frontier of human expert capability. Tested with and without tool augmentation.
Claude Opus 4.5
21.4
Kimi K2.5
20.6
Lmca
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +2.4
Claude Opus 4.5
52.3
Claude Sonnet 4.6
54.7
Mystery Game Puzzles
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +6.6
Claude Opus 4.5
14.1
Claude Sonnet 4.6
7.5
Proofbench
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +9.0
Claude Opus 4.5
36.0
Claude Sonnet 4.6
45.0
SimpleBench
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +18.2
SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking.
Claude Opus 4.5
54.4
Kimi K2.5
36.2
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Kimi K2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
APEX-Agents APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments. | 18.4 | 43.0 | 14.4 |
ARC-AGI ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization. | 80.0 | 86.5 | 65.3 |
ARC-AGI-2 ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data. | 37.6 | 60.4 | 11.8 |
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | 12.0 | 13.0 | 12.0 |
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning. | 20.7 | 32.4 | 27.9 |
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning. | 4.2 | 13.8 | 7.0 |
GPQA diamond Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs. | 81.4 | 86.6 | 86.9 |
OSWorld OSWorld · tests AI agents on real-world computer tasks across operating systems, including web browsing, file management, and application use. | 66.3 | 72.1 | 63.3 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 86.1 | 85.8 | 92.2 |
PostTrainBench | 17.3 | 16.4 | 10.3 |
SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information. | 41.8 | 35.5 | 34.3 |
SWE-Bench verified SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability. | 76.7 | 75.2 | 73.8 |
Terminal Bench Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. | 63.1 | 53.4 | 43.2 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 63.7 | 66.1 | 45.6 |
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?" | n/a | 40.8 | 58.9 |
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads. | n/a | 63.0 | 39.5 |
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index | n/a | 47.2 | 46.8 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding | 1468.5 | 1521.4 | n/a |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall | 1469.8 | 1472.2 | n/a |
Cl Bench | 21.1 | n/a | 19.3 |
DeepResearch Bench DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses. | 54.8 | 54.9 | n/a |
Dtbench | 83.1 | 83.1 | n/a |
GeoBench GeoBench · tests geographic knowledge and spatial reasoning across countries, landmarks, coordinates, and geopolitical understanding. | 75.0 | 73.0 | n/a |
HLE HLE (Humanity's Last Exam) · a reasoning benchmark designed to be the hardest public evaluation of AI. Questions span mathematics, physics, philosophy, and logic · curated to be at or beyond the frontier of human expert capability. Tested with and without tool augmentation. | 21.4 | n/a | 20.6 |
Lmca | 52.3 | 54.7 | n/a |
Mystery Game Puzzles | 14.1 | 7.5 | n/a |
Proofbench | 36.0 | 45.0 | n/a |
SimpleBench SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking. | 54.4 | n/a | 36.2 |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
| Model | Input | Output | Context | Projected $/mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $5.00 | $25.00 | 200K tokens (~100 books) | $100.00 | |
| $3.00 | $15.00 | 1.0M tokens (~500 books) | $60.00 | |
| $0.53 | $3.33 | 262K tokens (~131 books) | $12.30 |
People also compared