Comparisons · both · is kimi better than claude

Is Kimi better than Claude? A dated scorecard, not a winner

Published 16 Oct 2026. Updated 16 Oct 2026. Researched 16 Oct 2026.

“Better” depends on the job and on which Claude you mean. This site’s comparator is whatever the build resolved as the latest Opus and the latest Sol. The paragraphs do not freeze those names. The charts do, because they print the snapshot.

Price first, because it is not close

Illustrative Coding-agent session costkimi-k3$1.35qwen3.8-flash$0.116Anthropic: Claude Opus 5.5$2.94OpenAI: GPT-6.1 Sol$1.47
Coding-agent session: 3 million input tokens, 90% served from cache, 60 thousand output tokens. Cache-write fees are not included. All rows use the OpenRouter list price. Comparators are OpenRouter list prices for Anthropic: Claude Opus 5.5 ($8.00/M blended) and OpenAI: GPT-6.1 Sol. Snapshot 2026-10-16. Cache-write fees are excluded. A missing cache price is billed as a full input token.
ModelSessionvs Opusvs SolCache price
kimi-k3$1.3554% cheaper8% cheaperpublished
qwen3.8-flash$0.11696% cheaper92% cheaperpublished
Anthropic: Claude Opus 5.5$2.94——published
OpenAI: GPT-6.1 Sol$1.47——published

The percentages in this table compare session cost. The price table's percentages compare blended token price. They answer different questions.

The task chart uses OpenRouter list prices, so the Kimi bar is the cheap-host fiction. Read the note above it before you believe the bar. The official output rate is $15 per million. A coding agent that emits a lot of tokens will not feel like a discount product. Qwen’s flash id is the discount product.

Preference data

LMArena coding, style controlClaude Opus 5.5 (High)1547.52gpt-6.1-sol-max1539.79Kimi K3 (Max)1537.83mimo-v2.6-pro1537.58glm-5.3-flash1524.53deepseek-v4.1-flash-max1523.37qwen3.8-max1523.36glm-5.3-max1518.51kimi-k2.61516.03mimo-v2.6-flash1512.93deepseek-v4-pro1500.58qwen3.8-27b1499.13minimax-m31496.69deepseek-v4-flash1484.16hunyuan-hy3-preview1452.74
Style-controlled Bradley-Terry ratings from the LMArena leaderboard dataset. Not Elo. A higher rating means the model was preferred more often in blind votes. Intervals are the dataset's rating_lower and rating_upper. Ratings are rounded to 1 decimal for display in the chart; full values are stored. Category: coding. Published 2026-10-15, fetched 2026-10-16. Source: https://huggingface.co/datasets/lmarena-ai/leaderboard-dataset (text_style_control, latest).
EntryratingDetail
Claude Opus 5.5 (High)1547.52rank 6, 1,894 votes, 1533.61–1561.44
gpt-6.1-sol-max1539.79rank 10, 1,257 votes, 1522.63–1556.95
Kimi K3 (Max)1537.83rank 12, 8,306 votes, 1530.58–1545.09
mimo-v2.6-pro1537.58rank 13, 1,105 votes, 1519.93–1555.23
glm-5.3-flash1524.53rank 27, 8,457 votes, 1517.07–1531.99
deepseek-v4.1-flash-max1523.37rank 29, 3,527 votes, 1513.1–1533.65
qwen3.8-max1523.36rank 30, 7,677 votes, 1515.79–1530.93
glm-5.3-max1518.51rank 38, 5,400 votes, 1509.88–1527.13
kimi-k2.61516.03rank 44, 11,091 votes, 1509.15–1522.92
mimo-v2.6-flash1512.93rank 51, 2,625 votes, 1500.97–1524.89
deepseek-v4-pro1500.58rank 78, 17,136 votes, 1494.66–1506.51
qwen3.8-27b1499.13rank 81, 6,417 votes, 1491.03–1507.23
minimax-m31496.69rank 87, 18,242 votes, 1490.99–1502.39
deepseek-v4-flash1484.16rank 105, 15,288 votes, 1477.95–1490.37
hunyuan-hy3-preview1452.74rank 153, 2,055 votes, 1439.33–1466.16
LMArena overall, style controlClaude Opus 5.5 (High)1508.17Kimi K3 (Max)1487.07gpt-6.1-sol-max1483.85qwen3.8-max1482.35mimo-v2.6-pro1479.19glm-5.3-max1478.54deepseek-v4.1-flash-max1474.63glm-5.3-flash1473.84kimi-k2.61460.83deepseek-v4-pro1457.79mimo-v2.6-flash1450.93minimax-m31441.32qwen3.8-27b1437.75deepseek-v4-flash1435.65hunyuan-hy3-preview1409.13
Style-controlled Bradley-Terry ratings from the LMArena leaderboard dataset. Not Elo. A higher rating means the model was preferred more often in blind votes. Intervals are the dataset's rating_lower and rating_upper. Ratings are rounded to 1 decimal for display in the chart; full values are stored. Category: overall. Published 2026-10-15, fetched 2026-10-16. Source: https://huggingface.co/datasets/lmarena-ai/leaderboard-dataset (text_style_control, latest).
EntryratingDetail
Claude Opus 5.5 (High)1508.17rank 3, 8,300 votes, 1500.84–1515.5
Kimi K3 (Max)1487.07rank 18, 32,795 votes, 1482.49–1491.66
gpt-6.1-sol-max1483.85rank 22, 6,320 votes, 1475.71–1491.98
qwen3.8-max1482.35rank 24, 27,766 votes, 1477.38–1487.33
mimo-v2.6-pro1479.19rank 27, 4,075 votes, 1469.83–1488.56
glm-5.3-max1478.54rank 28, 22,543 votes, 1473.31–1483.77
deepseek-v4.1-flash-max1474.63rank 38, 12,793 votes, 1468.41–1480.86
glm-5.3-flash1473.84rank 41, 32,925 votes, 1468.97–1478.71
kimi-k2.61460.83rank 59, 40,013 votes, 1456.4–1465.26
deepseek-v4-pro1457.79rank 64, 57,594 votes, 1453.89–1461.69
mimo-v2.6-flash1450.93rank 77, 10,917 votes, 1444.44–1457.42
minimax-m31441.32rank 96, 63,973 votes, 1437.48–1445.16
qwen3.8-27b1437.75rank 100, 23,294 votes, 1432.64–1442.86
deepseek-v4-flash1435.65rank 104, 51,987 votes, 1431.61–1439.68
hunyuan-hy3-preview1409.13rank 152, 6,879 votes, 1401.72–1416.54

Kimi K3 (Max) is in the top cluster on both cuts of the 15 Oct 2026 publish. The current Opus row is ahead. The intervals in the detail column are wide enough that a one-rank gap is not a product decision. These are blind votes, mostly short conversations people chose to send. They are not a private-repo agent eval.

Terminal-Bench is Moonshot’s table

Terminal-Bench 2.1 on the Kimi K3 cardKimi K3 (max)88.3Claude Fable 5 (max, w/ fallback)88GPT-5.6 Sol (max)88.8Claude Opus 4.8 (max)84.6GPT-5.5 (xhigh)83.4GLM-5.2 (max)82.7
Scores copied from the Moonshot model card. Kimi K3 is evaluated with the Kimi Code harness. Other models use the best score across harnesses, as the card states: GLM-5.2 with Claude Code, Claude Opus 4.8 and Claude Fable 5 with Terminus 2, GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.6 Sol with Codex. These are not the current Opus alias, and the harnesses are not the same, so the gaps are not a clean comparison. Fetched 2026-10-16. Source: https://huggingface.co/moonshotai/Kimi-K3.
EntryscoreDetail
Kimi K3 (max)88.3Kimi Code
Claude Fable 5 (max, w/ fallback)88Terminus 2
GPT-5.6 Sol (max)88.8Codex
Claude Opus 4.8 (max)84.6Terminus 2
GPT-5.5 (xhigh)83.4Codex
GLM-5.2 (max)82.7Claude Code

Use it as a vendor table with a harness footnote. Do not import it into a sentence that says Kimi beat “Claude” without naming the harness and the fact that the card’s Claude rows are not the current alias.

For what tasks

Job Lean
Cheap coding loop, boilerplate, logs A flash model, not K3
Long context you are willing to pay output for K3, after a short paid test
Blind chat preference close to the frontier K3 is in the cluster; it is not the top row
Data that cannot leave a regulated laptop Neither, until you self-host weights you are allowed to run

SWE-bench Verified, in the file we fetched, has Kimi K2.5 and Kimi K2 rows and no K3 row. Absence is the finding.

Related: Kimi K3 prices, which model for which job.

Questions

Is Kimi better than Claude at coding?

On the LMArena coding snapshot from 15 Oct 2026, the Kimi K3 row sits behind the current Opus row. On Moonshot's own Terminal-Bench table the harnesses differ. Neither result is a universal win.

Is Kimi cheaper than Claude?

On Moonshot's published rate, output is $15 per million tokens. The blended official price is not a flash-tier discount. See the price note in the chart.

Sources

  1. LMArena leaderboard dataset, accessed 2026-10-16
  2. Kimi K3 model card, accessed 2026-10-16
  3. Kimi context caching, accessed 2026-10-16
  4. OpenRouter models API, accessed 2026-10-16