Skip to main content

    Anthropic · Moonshot AI

    Claude Opus 4.7 vs Kimi K2.6

    Compare Claude Opus 4.7 (Anthropic) and Kimi K2.6 (Moonshot AI) on benchmarks, capabilities, and pricing.

    At a glance

    Claude Opus 4.7Kimi K2.6
    ProviderAnthropicMoonshot AI
    Context1M tokens256K tokens
    ModalityMultimodalMultimodal
    PricingMaxMax
    SpeedMediumMedium
    ReasoningExpertExpert

    Benchmarks

    Claude Opus 4.7

    AA Intelligence Index
    40.7points
    Artificial Analysis · Date unknownAge unknown
    Output speed
    72tokens/s
    Artificial Analysis · As of Aug 11, 2026Stale · 31d old
    API input cost
    $5.00/ 1M tokens
    Artificial Analysis · Date unknownAge unknown
    API output cost
    $25.00/ 1M tokens
    Artificial Analysis · Date unknownAge unknown
    Context window
    1M
    Catalog · As of Aug 11, 2026Stale · 31d old

    Benchmark variant: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)

    AA data retrieved Sep 11, 2026 · Artificial Analysis

    Kimi K2.6

    AA Intelligence Index
    31.3points
    Artificial Analysis · Date unknownAge unknown
    Output speed
    86tokens/s
    Artificial Analysis · As of Aug 11, 2026Stale · 31d old
    API input cost
    $0.95/ 1M tokens
    Artificial Analysis · Date unknownAge unknown
    API output cost
    $4.00/ 1M tokens
    Artificial Analysis · Date unknownAge unknown
    Context window
    256K
    Catalog · As of Aug 11, 2026Stale · 31d old

    Benchmark variant: Kimi K2.6

    AA data retrieved Sep 11, 2026 · Artificial Analysis

    When to pick Claude Opus 4.7

    Pick Claude Opus 4.7 for production agents combining tool use, code generation, and structured reasoning over typical enterprise context sizes. It suits coding copilots inside IDEs, customer support automation with retrieval pipelines, and analytical workflows where Anthropic's safety posture and constitutional training fit your governance requirements better than swapping in long-context generalists.

    When to pick Kimi K2.6

    Pick Kimi K2.6 for workflows centered on very long documents loaded directly into context. Examples include reviewing entire codebases without chunking, summarizing book-length manuscripts, processing legal discovery bundles, or comparing dozens of financial filings in a single call. A fit when retrieval pipelines feel like overhead and raw context capacity simplifies your design.

    Try both on yno.ai

    Switch between Claude Opus 4.7 and Kimi K2.6 per task with one account.

    Frequently asked

    Which is faster, Claude Opus 4.7 or Kimi K2.6?
    Claude Opus 4.7 is rated medium and Kimi K2.6 is rated medium. yno.ai surfaces output-speed scores from Artificial Analysis on each model's detail page so you can compare exact tokens-per-second figures for your workload.
    Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or Kimi K2.6?
    Claude Opus 4.7 is on the max tier in yno.ai; Kimi K2.6 is on the max tier. See the pricing page for the latest per-tier limits.
    Which is better for Complex software engineering?
    Both models support Complex software engineering. Claude Opus 4.7 brings Software engineering; Kimi K2.6 brings Vendor-reported SWE-Bench Pro 58.6. Run a side-by-side eval on your prompts in yno.ai to see which fits your workload.
    Can I use both Claude Opus 4.7 and Kimi K2.6 in yno.ai?
    Yes. Both are available on yno.ai under your single account; you can route different stages of an agent to different models or A/B test them on the same prompt without per-provider boilerplate.

    Related comparisons