Head to head

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Kimi K2.6

Claude Opus 4.6 (Anthropic) and Kimi K2.6 (Moonshot AI) compared on intelligence, speed, context, and price — and which to choose. Both run on just4o.chat from one chat.

MetricClaude Opus 4.6Kimi K2.6
Intelligence (AA index)4654
Output speed (tokens/sec)38.840.6
Context window1M256K
Max output128K262K
Input price / 1M$5$0.95
Output price / 1M$25$4
Released2026-022026-04

Choose Claude Opus 4.6 if you want…

  • Larger context window (1M)

Choose Kimi K2.6 if you want…

  • Higher intelligence (Artificial Analysis index 54)
  • Faster output (~40.6 tokens/sec)
  • Lower price ($1.71 / 1M blended)

Claude Opus 4.6

Opus 4.6 is the model researchers and engineers reach for when the problem genuinely cannot be chunked — loading an entire codebase, a year's worth of literature, or a complex multi-part investigation into a single session of up to 750,000 words. It tops Terminal-Bench 2.0 among frontier models for agentic coding tasks and leads BrowseComp for hard-to-locate information retrieval, reflecting a design philosophy built around sustained, autonomous work rather than quick exchanges. Scientists have noted roughly double the accuracy on computational biology and structural chemistry tasks versus its predecessor. The tradeoff is speed: at 38.8 tokens per second, it feels noticeably slower than alternatives during interactive back-and-forth. The 1M-token window is also still in beta, and users report meaningful performance degradation well before hitting its ceiling. Best suited to high-stakes tasks where depth matters more than pace.

Full Claude Opus 4.6 details →

Kimi K2.6

Kimi K2.6 is Moonshot AI's open-weight coding specialist built for the kind of work that takes hours, not seconds. Its signature capability is agent swarm orchestration — coordinating up to 300 sub-agents across 4,000 execution steps — enabling autonomous refactoring sessions that developers have run for over 13 hours straight. On SWE-Bench Verified it scores 80.2%, and it edges out GPT-5.4 on SWE-Bench Pro at 58.6%, making it the strongest open-weight coding model available at its price point. Users report up to 88% cost savings on coding workloads compared to proprietary alternatives, which is the real draw for teams running code-heavy pipelines at scale. The tradeoff is speed and occasional drift: at 40.6 tokens per second — well below the category median — it is not suited to real-time use. In long-running agentic tasks, users note the model can wander into unnecessary redesigns around the three-hour mark, requiring clear, constrained prompting to keep it on track. For deep, non-interactive coding work where cost efficiency and open-weight flexibility matter more than instant responses, K2.6 occupies a position few models can match.

Full Kimi K2.6 details →

FAQ

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Kimi K2.6?

Kimi K2.6 leads on 3 of the headline metrics (higher intelligence (artificial analysis index 54); faster output (~40.6 tokens/sec); lower price ($1.71 / 1m blended)), while Claude Opus 4.6 wins on larger context window (1m). The right pick depends on your priorities.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Kimi K2.6 cheaper?

Kimi K2.6 is cheaper at $1.71 per 1M tokens (blended), versus $10.

Can I use both Claude Opus 4.6 and Kimi K2.6?

Yes. Both are available on just4o.chat from a single chat — you can switch between them per message with no separate subscriptions.