Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Kimi K3

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 27 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

66.27/100
Margin
14.7pts
winning →
Kimi K3
Moonshot AI
80.96/100
0 category wins3 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #27 (Estimated); Kimi K3 #4 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Kimi K3 share 27 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 11 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 30 to Kimi K3.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
27
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
11
Kimi K3 only
30
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Kimi K3 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 27 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Kimi K3 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 80.96 to 66.27. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Kimi K3's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 89.5 against 75.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is OfficeQA Pro, 43.6% to 63.3%.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens for Kimi K3. Kimi K3 gives you the larger context window at 1.05M, compared with 1M for Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive).

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Kimi K3
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)ΔKimi K3
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1Margin→ 14.4Kimi K389.5
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1Margin→ 13.4Kimi K378.5
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0Margin→ 1.0Kimi K361.0
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6MarginNo overlapKimi K3Not measured
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8MarginNo overlapKimi K3Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)B · Kimi K3

  1. OfficeQA Pro

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 43.6%B 63.3%
    Winner: Kimi K3Δ 19.7
    OfficeQA Pro: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 43.6%; Kimi K3 scored 63.3%. Kimi K3 wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 69.4%B 88.3%
    Winner: Kimi K3Δ 18.9
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 69.4%; Kimi K3 scored 88.3%. Kimi K3 wins this benchmark.

  3. BrowseComp

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 79.3%B 91.2%
    Winner: Kimi K3Δ 11.9
    BrowseComp: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 79.3%; Kimi K3 scored 91.2%. Kimi K3 wins this benchmark.

  4. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 54.7%B 56%
    Winner: Kimi K3Δ 1.3
    HLE: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 54.7%; Kimi K3 scored 56%. Kimi K3 wins this benchmark.

  5. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 94.2%B 93.5%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 0.7
    GPQA: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 94.2%; Kimi K3 scored 93.5%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Kimi K3Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 outputKimi K3$3 input / $15 outputKimi K3 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableKimi K3Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableKimi K3Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1MKimi K31.05MKimi K3 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticKimi K3 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Kimi K3Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%88.3%Kimi K3 leads
BrowseCompSource 79.3%91.2%Kimi K3 leads
MCP AtlasSource 77.3%84.2%Kimi K3 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 78%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 73.1%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 44.4%50.1%Kimi K3 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 88.6%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 49.8%59.0%Kimi K3 leads
GDPval-AASource 14951679Kimi K3 leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 18.2%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 45.9%52.9%Kimi K3 leads
AA ITBenchSource 46.7%47.7%Kimi K3 leads
DeepSearchQASource —95.0%Not comparable
Toolathlon-VerifiedSource —73.2%Not comparable
AutomationBenchSource —30.8%Not comparable
APEX-AgentsSource —37.6%Not comparable
SpreadsheetBench 2Source —34.8%Not comparable
DECK-BenchSource —73.5%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —1543Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource —52.7%Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —45.3%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —94.6%Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource —33.4%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source —85%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —41.3%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Kimi K3Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 87.6%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 64.3%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 73.6%76.2%Kimi K3 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 54.5%58.7%Kimi K3 leads
deepSweSource —67.5%Not comparable
FrontierSWESource —81.2%Not comparable
ProgramBenchSource —77.8%Not comparable
Kimi Code Bench v2Source —72.9%Not comparable
sweMarathonSource —42%Not comparable
PostTrain BenchSource —36.6%Not comparable
MLS-Bench LiteSource —48.3%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Kimi K3Result
MRCR v2 128K-256KSource 59.2%—Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source 75.8%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 70.3%74.7%Kimi K3 leads
CritPtSource 12.0%23.4%Kimi K3 leads
KnowledgeKimi K3 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Kimi K3Result
GPQASource 94.2%93.5%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
GPQA-DSource 94.2%93.5%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
HLESource 54.7%56%Kimi K3 leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 46.9%43.5%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 53.5%57.1%Kimi K3 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.4%93.5%Kimi K3 leads
AA-HLESource 39.6%44.3%Kimi K3 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 26.2%18.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.8%46.0%Kimi K3 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 36.2%50.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Kimi K3Result
FrontierMath (legacy)Source 43.8%—Not comparable
MultimodalKimi K3 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Kimi K3Result
OfficeQA ProSource 43.6%63.3%Kimi K3 leads
CharXivSource 91%91.3%Kimi K3 leads
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 82.1%84.8%Kimi K3 leads
AA-MMMU-ProSource 78.8%80.5%Kimi K3 leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13251386Kimi K3 leads
MMMU-ProSource —81.6%Not comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource —83.4%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —94.3%Not comparable
MathVision w/ PythonSource —97.8%Not comparable
BabyVision w/ PythonSource —85.7%Not comparable
ZeroBenchSource —23.0%Not comparable
ZeroBench w/ PythonSource —41.0%Not comparable
WorldVQA ForceAnswerSource —51.0%Not comparable
OmniDocBenchSource —91.1%Not comparable
PerceptionBenchSource —58.5%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Kimi K3Result
AA-IFBenchSource 58.6%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Kimi K3?

Kimi K3 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 80.96 to 66.27. The biggest single separator in this matchup is OfficeQA Pro, where the scores are 43.6% and 63.3%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Kimi K3?

Kimi K3 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 61 versus 60. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Kimi K3?

Kimi K3 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 89.5 versus 75.1. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Kimi K3?

Kimi K3 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.5 versus 65.1. Inside this category, Design Arena Website is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.