Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
Which is better for the money: Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or Kimi K3.1 Pro by Kimi? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Kimi K3.1 Pro scores 12.8 points higher (55.1 vs 42.3) but costs 3.6× as much to run the benchmark ($3117 vs $860; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Kimi K3.1 Pro when you need intelligence above 42.3, and Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) when 42.3 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) | Kimi K3.1 Pro | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 42.3 | 55.1 | +30.3% Kimi K3.1 Pro is 30.3% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $860.33 | $3,117.31 | +262.3% Kimi K3.1 Pro is 3.6× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 13.42s | 42.64s | +217.7% Kimi K3.1 Pro is 217.7% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $4.00 / $20.0 | $2.00 / $10.0 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback): 30.3% more intelligence, 262.3% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 217.7% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
- Kimi K3.1 Pro is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback)Kimi K3.1 ProToday's Pareto frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-5-low/kimi-k3-1-pro · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-5-low/kimi-k3-1-pro?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill