Claude Opus 5.5 vs Kimi K3.1 Pro (Venice)
On the 9 use cases both models ran, Kimi K3.1 Pro (Venice) won 5 to 3, with 1 tied (better outcome first, then lower cost).
Pass rate: Claude Opus 5.5 78% (9 runs) vs Kimi K3.1 Pro (Venice) 89% (9 runs). Average cost per run: $0.17 vs $0.14.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5.5 | Kimi K3.1 Pro (Venice) |
|---|---|---|
| Runs on shared use cases | 9 | 9 |
| Pass rate | 78% (7/9) | 89% (8/9) |
| Avg cost per run | $0.17 | $0.14 |
| Avg wall time | 35s | 4m |
| Step-ins per run | 0.22 | 0.22 |
| Use cases won | 3 | 5 |
Use case by use case
- Backtest a moving-average crossover on a bundled synthetic price file: Claude Opus 5.5 better (pass 100% vs 100%)
- Clean up idle cloud resources without deleting the last prod snapshot: tie (pass 0% vs 0%)
- Life-like automaton from RLE with a Klein-bottle grid and a playable animated page: Claude Opus 5.5 better (pass 100% vs 100%)
- Model a game-ready low-poly 3D prop from a one-line brief, within a tight triangle budget: Kimi K3.1 Pro (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 100%)
- Progressive tax on fictional brackets, and pre-tax vs after-tax savings comparison: Kimi K3.1 Pro (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 100%)
- Read a synthetic annual-report excerpt and compute financial ratios: Kimi K3.1 Pro (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 100%)
- Run a payables batch with a hidden bank change, an over-cap memo and an ambiguous amount: Kimi K3.1 Pro (Venice) better (pass 0% vs 100%)
- Seeded Monte Carlo retirement odds against a stated success threshold: Claude Opus 5.5 better (pass 100% vs 100%)
- Work backward from a retirement budget to a savings target, contributions and earliest retirement age: Kimi K3.1 Pro (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 100%)
Only use cases both models ran are compared; all settings of each model are grouped. How we score.