Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Kimi K3
Head-to-head evidence from 11 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 #12 (Supported); Kimi K3 #4 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 and Kimi K3 share 11 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 10 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7; 46 to Kimi K3.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 11
- Claude Opus 4.7 only
- 10
- Kimi K3 only
- 46
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Claude Opus 4.7 and Kimi K3 is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 11 shared benchmark results across 4 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.
Claude Opus 4.7 is priced 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 has the larger context window at 1.05M, compared with 1M for Claude Opus 4.7.
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 | Claude Opus 4.7 | Δ | Kimi K3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K389.5 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K361.0 |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.738.6 | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K3Not measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Kimi K378.5 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.7 | Kimi K3 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.7$5 input / $25 output | Kimi K3$3 input / $15 output | Kimi K3 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.7Not available | Kimi K3Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.7Not available | Kimi K3Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.71M | Kimi K31.05M | Kimi K3 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic25 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Kimi K3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 74% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 65.59% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 20.7% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 13.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 88.3% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 91.2% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 95.0% | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon-VerifiedSource | — | 73.2% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 84.2% | Not comparable |
| AutomationBenchSource | — | 30.8% | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | — | 52.9% | Not comparable |
| APEX-AgentsSource | — | 37.6% | Not comparable |
| SpreadsheetBench 2Source | — | 34.8% | Not comparable |
| DECK-BenchSource | — | 73.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 50.1% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 59.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1679 | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 1543 | Not 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 |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 47.7% | Not comparable |
Coding12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Kimi K3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 71.00% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 82.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 50.1% | 58.7% | Kimi K3 leads |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 38.5% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 76.2% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Kimi K3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 42.7% | 57.1% | Kimi K3 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 88.5% | 93.5% | Kimi K3 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 31.2% | 44.3% | Kimi K3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 14.2% | 18.4% | Kimi K3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 43.5% | 46.0% | Kimi K3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 51.9% | 50.9% | Kimi K3 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 93.5% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 93.5% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 56% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 43.5% | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Kimi K3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 76.4% | 80.5% | Kimi K3 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1325 | 1386 | Kimi K3 leads |
| OfficeQA ProSource | — | 63.3% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 81.6% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource | — | 83.4% | Not comparable |
| CharXiv w/o toolsSource | — | 84.8% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 91.3% | 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. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Kimi K3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 43.6% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Claude Opus 4.7 and Kimi K3 on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for Claude Opus 4.7 and Kimi K3 today?
Claude Opus 4.7: $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens Kimi K3: $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
Related Comparisons
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.