// head_to_head
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Kimi K3
Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.
Kimi K3 scores higher, Claude Sonnet 5 costs less — it depends on your workload.
Kimi K3 is ahead by 3.2 points overall, and Claude Sonnet 5 lists 1.5× cheaper per blended million tokens. Whether 3.2 points is worth that depends on how much a wrong answer costs you. The two cost measures disagree here, which is worth knowing: Claude Sonnet 5 has the lower sticker price, but Kimi K3 earns each point of capability for less — $0.1909 against $0.2691 — because per-token rates do not predict how many tokens a model actually spends on a task.
anthropic
Claude Sonnet 5
- Blended / 1M
- $4.00
- Context
- 1M
- Released
- Jun 30, 2026
- Overall score
- 76.0
moonshotai
Kimi K3
- Blended / 1M
- $6.00
- Context
- 1.0M
- Released
- Jul 16, 2026
- Overall score
- 79.2
Specs and pricing
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 5 | Kimi K3 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench overall Mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better. | 76.0 | 79.2win |
| Cost per point Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability. | $0.2691 | $0.1909win |
| Blended price / 1M 3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic. | $4.00win | $6.00 |
| Input price / 1M | $2.00win | $3.00 |
| Output price / 1M | $10.00win | $15.00 |
| Cached input / 1M Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one. | $0.200win | $0.300 |
| Context window | 1M | 1.0M |
| Max output tokens | 128K | — |
Benchmarks by category
An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — Claude Sonnet 5 on top, Kimi K3 below, both out of 100.
What each one costs to run
Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.
| Workload | Claude Sonnet 5 | Kimi K3 |
|---|---|---|
| Support chatbot 1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests | $1150.40/mo | $1725.60/mo |
| RAG assistant 8K in / 600 out × 100K requests | $1480.00/mo | $2220.00/mo |
| Coding agent 40K in / 4K out × 20K requests | $1392.00/mo | $2088.00/mo |
| Document extraction 20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests | $2660.00/mo | $3990.00/mo |
| Bulk classification 500 in / 20 out × 5M requests | $5100.00/mo | $7650.00/mo |
Which should you pick?
You are running this at volume
Kimi K3
Lowest measured cost per point of capability at $0.1909 per point — the gap compounds with every request.
Quality matters more than the bill
Kimi K3
Highest overall LiveBench score of the two at 79.2.
The workload is coding or agentic work
Kimi K3
Leads on agentic coding — 62.2 against 59.4.
You are cost-constrained
Claude Sonnet 5
Cheaper on blended list price at $4.00 per million tokens.
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Kimi K3 FAQ
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or Kimi K3?
Kimi K3 scores higher, Claude Sonnet 5 costs less — it depends on your workload. Kimi K3 is ahead by 3.2 points overall, and Claude Sonnet 5 lists 1.5× cheaper per blended million tokens. Whether 3.2 points is worth that depends on how much a wrong answer costs you. The two cost measures disagree here, which is worth knowing: Claude Sonnet 5 has the lower sticker price, but Kimi K3 earns each point of capability for less — $0.1909 against $0.2691 — because per-token rates do not predict how many tokens a model actually spends on a task.
Is Claude Sonnet 5 cheaper than Kimi K3?
Claude Sonnet 5 is cheaper. On a 3:1 input:output blend, Claude Sonnet 5 lists at $4.00 per million tokens and Kimi K3 at $6.00 — Claude Sonnet 5 is 1.5× cheaper. Input and output are priced separately — Claude Sonnet 5 charges $2.00 in and $10.00 out, Kimi K3 charges $3.00 and $15.00 — so the model that looks cheaper flips depending on how output-heavy your workload is.
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Kimi K3: which scores higher on benchmarks?
Claude Sonnet 5 scores 76.0 and Kimi K3 scores 79.2 overall on LiveBench, the mean of its seven categories. That is a 3.2-point lead for Kimi K3. Category scores differ from the overall figure — a model can lead on reasoning and trail on coding, which the per-category table above breaks out.
Which gives better value for money, Claude Sonnet 5 or Kimi K3?
Kimi K3. Cost per point divides the measured dollars LiveBench spent running the benchmark by the score it earned, so it captures something token pricing misses: a reasoning model can emit many times more tokens than its per-token rate suggests. Claude Sonnet 5 works out at $0.2691 per point and Kimi K3 at $0.1909.
Does Claude Sonnet 5 or Kimi K3 have a bigger context window?
They are effectively the same — 1M for Claude Sonnet 5 and 1.0M for Kimi K3.
Do Claude Sonnet 5 and Kimi K3 support prompt caching?
Both publish a cached-input rate: $0.200 per million for Claude Sonnet 5 and $0.300 for Kimi K3, against full input rates of $2.00 and $3.00. On a workload with a long stable prefix — a system prompt, a tool schema, a retrieved corpus — that changes the economics more than the headline price does.
Related comparisons
How these numbers are produced
- Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
- Scores — LiveBench release 2026-06-25, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
- Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
- “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.
Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.