Model Comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)
vs. Kimi K2 Thinking
Comparing 2 AI models · 10 benchmarks · Anthropic, MoonshotAI
Recommended Pick
Mo Kimi K2 Thinking 9 metric wins Strongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
Kimi K2 Thinking
100.0 value score
67.3 reasoning / $1.07/1M
Lowest Price
Kimi K2 Thinking
$0.60/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Kimi K2 Thinking
67.3 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)
48.1 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Kimi K2 Thinking has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Kimi K2 Thinking is 10.4x cheaper on input tokens than Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort).
Speed gap
Kimi K2 Thinking generates about 2.1x as many tokens per second as Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort).
Reasoning gap
Kimi K2 Thinking leads Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort) by 7.5 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort) leads Kimi K2 Thinking by 13.3 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)
Anthropic
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Kimi K2 Thinking
MoonshotAI
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | An Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort) | Top Pick Mo Kimi K2 Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $6.25/1M | $0.60/1M |
| Output Cost | $25.00/1M | $2.50/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $10.94/1M | $1.07/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Anthropic | MoonshotAI |
| Release Date | Feb 5, 2026 | Nov 6, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 61.4 tok/s | 128.9 tok/s |
| TTFT | 13964ms | 962ms |
| Latency | 13964ms | 16475ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 8.7 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 59.7 | 67.3 |
| Intelligence | 52.9 | 40.9 |
| Coding | 48.1 | 34.8 |
| Math | — | 94.7 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 89.6% | 83.8% |
| MMLU Pro | — | 84.8% |
| HLE | 36.7% | 22.3% |
| LiveCodeBench | — | 85.3% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 94.7% |
| SciCode | 51.9% | 42.4% |
| LCR | 70.7% | 66.3% |
| IFBench | 53.1% | 68.1% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 92.1% | 93.0% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 46.2% | 31.1% |
Key Takeaways
Kimi K2 Thinking offers the best value at $0.60/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Kimi K2 Thinking has the strongest reasoning profile with a 67.3 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort) reaches a 48.1 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)
- Code generation
- Software development
Kimi K2 Thinking
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
