Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Kimi K2.5

Compare Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Kimi K2.5 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.

Compare Claude Sonnet 4.5 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.

Open OCR in the full playground
AnthropicClaude Sonnet 4.5
Run to compare this model.
MoonshotAIKimi K2.5
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

MoonshotAI

Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Kimi K2.5: Overview

Claude Sonnet 4.5

Claude Sonnet 4.5, released by Anthropic in September 2025, is the company’s most advanced Sonnet-series model, built for high-performance reasoning, coding, and long-horizon agentic workflows. It is a multimodal system that accepts both text and images, with a 200,000-token context window designed for handling large documents and extended interactions. Anthropic highlights its improvements in reliability, reduced sycophancy, and alignment, making it suitable for sustained enterprise use.

The model delivers strong results in coding and autonomous workflows, achieving 61.4% on the OSWorld benchmark and leading performance on SWE-bench Verified. It introduces infrastructure features such as a memory tool (beta), checkpointing for Claude Code, parallel tool use, and tighter integration with VS Code. Compared to Opus, which targets broader reasoning, Sonnet 4.5 is optimized for structured, long-duration tasks. Positioned against leading offerings from OpenAI and Google, it is aimed at enterprise automation, software engineering, and research-intensive applications.

Kimi K2.5

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 Sonnet 4.5 vs Kimi K2.5 Comparison Table

PropertyClaude Sonnet 4.5Kimi K2.5
OrganizationAnthropicMoonshot AI
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2025Jan 2026
Context Window200K256K
Parameters1T
LicenseProprietaryModified MIT
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$3.00$0.375
Output $/1M$15.00$2.02
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
ClassificationDemo
Object DetectionDemo
Model Features
Multimodal Vision
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts
Score key:≥75%40–74%<40%
Overall Score
35.82%
Avg Response Time14.81s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens1.6K
Median output tokens766
Est. cost / taskon this benchmark$0.0021
Defect Detection
46.7%(7/15)
Document Understanding
55.6%(5/9)
Object Counting
10%(1/10)
Object Understanding
42.9%(6/14)
Spatial Understanding
26.3%(5/19)

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