Claude Opus 4 vs Kimi K2.5
Compare Claude Opus 4 and Kimi K2.5 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.
Compare Claude Opus 4 vs Kimi K2.5 live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Claude Opus 4 is deprecated and can no longer be run. Details and evals are still available on its model page.
Models in this comparison
Claude Opus 4 vs Kimi K2.5: Overview
Claude 4 Opus, released by Anthropic in May 2025, is the flagship model of the Claude 4 family, built for complex, long-horizon reasoning and advanced coding workflows. It is multimodal, supporting text (including voice), images, and tool use, and operates as a hybrid reasoning model—able to deliver quick answers in fast mode or switch to extended thinking for deeper, multi-step problem solving. With a ~200,000-token context window and a training cutoff around March 2025, it is optimized for handling large documents, long conversations, and sophisticated agentic tasks.
Positioned at the high end of Anthropic’s offerings, Opus 4 achieves state-of-the-art results on coding benchmarks like SWE-Bench (72.5%) and Terminal-Bench (43.2%). It is best suited for research, enterprise automation, and software development at scale. The model is classified at Anthropic’s ASL-3 safety level, denoting advanced oversight and safety features.
Kimi K2.5 is a frontier-scale multimodal AI model developed by Moonshot AI and released on January 27, 2026. As a significant advancement within the Kimi K2 family, it utilizes a sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture with 1 trillion total parameters (32 billion active per inference) and a massive 256K-token context window. The model features native multimodal integration via a 400M-parameter MoonViT encoder, allowing it to process text, images, and video frames simultaneously. Built for both speed and depth, it offers "Instant" and "Thinking" modes, the latter of which excels at expert-level reasoning, scoring 50.2% on the Humanity’s Last Exam (HLE) benchmark when equipped with tools.
The model is released under a Modified MIT License, which remains open-weight but requires attribution for high-revenue commercial entities. It introduces an "Agent Swarm" paradigm capable of coordinating up to 100 specialized sub-agents for parallel workflows, significantly reducing latency in complex research tasks. For vision tasks, Kimi K2.5 demonstrates strong autonomous visual debugging capabilities, where it can inspect its own generated UI outputs against visual specifications to iteratively refine frontend code. This makes it a powerful choice for developers testing automated UI reconstruction, high-fidelity OCR document processing, and multi-step agentic research grounded in complex visual data.
Claude Opus 4 vs Kimi K2.5 Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Opus 4 | Kimi K2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Moonshot AI |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | May 2025 | Jan 2026 |
| Context Window | 200K | 256K |
| Parameters | 1T | |
| License | Proprietary | Modified MIT |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $15.00 | $0.375 |
| Output $/1M | $75.00 | $2.02 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Classification | ||
| Object Detection | ||
| Model Features | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 56.72% | 35.82% |
| Avg Response Time | 19.74s | 14.81s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.6K | |
| Median output tokens | 766 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0021 | |
| Defect Detection | 66.7%(10/15) | 46.7%(7/15) |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | 55.6%(5/9) |
| Object Counting | 0%(0/10) | 10%(1/10) |
| Object Understanding | 64.3%(9/14) | 42.9%(6/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 57.9%(11/19) | 26.3%(5/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 19.65% | |
| Avg Response Time | 13.09s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 119 | |
| Median output tokens | 258 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0006 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 10.1%(10/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 50%(5/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 6.7%(2/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 26.7%(8/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 33.3%(20/60) | |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology