The available evidence supports a clear but incomplete picture: Claude Opus 4.7 leads the cited GPQA Diamond and Humanity’s Last Exam no-tools results and is reported #1 in Vision & Document Arena ^[4][1]. GPT-5.5 leads the cited Terminal-Bench 2.0, OSWorld-Verified, and FrontierMath results, while GPT-5.5 Pro leads Humanity’s Last Exam with tools ^[4][5]. DeepSeek V4 is reported as near-frontier at much lower cost and as the top open-weight model on one coding benchmark, but Kimi K2.6 has insufficient numeric evidence in the provided excerpts for a full benchmark comparison ^[4][18][1].

Key findings

• Claude Opus 4.7 has the strongest cited results on GPQA Diamond at 94.2% versus GPT-5.5 at 93.6% and DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max at 90.1% ^[4].

• Claude Opus 4.7 also leads the cited Humanity’s Last Exam no-tools result at 46.9%, ahead of GPT-5.5 Pro at 43.1%, GPT-5.5 at 41.4%, and DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max at 37.7% ^[4].

• GPT-5.5 Pro leads the cited Humanity’s Last Exam with-tools result at 57.2%, ahead of Claude Opus 4.7 at 54.7%, GPT-5.5 at 52.2%, and DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max at 48.2% ^[4].

• GPT-5.5 is strongest in the cited terminal/agentic-computing benchmarks: it scores 82.7% on Terminal-Bench 2.0, compared with Claude Opus 4.7 at 69.4% and DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max at 67.9% ^[4][5].

• GPT-5.5 narrowly leads Claude Opus 4.7 on OSWorld-Verified, 78.7% versus 78.0% ^[5].

• GPT-5.5 leads Claude Opus 4.7 on FrontierMath Tiers 1–3, 51.7% versus 43.8% ^[5].

• Claude Opus 4.7 is reported #1 in Vision & Document Arena, with a +4 point improvement over Opus 4.6 in Document Arena and wins in diagram, homework, and OCR subcategories ^[1].

• DeepSeek V4 is described as achieving near state-of-the-art intelligence at about one-sixth the cost of Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5, but the available evidence does not provide the underlying price schedule or methodology ^[4].

• DeepSeek V4 is claimed to be the #1 open-weight model on a Vibe Code Benchmark, ahead of Kimi K2.6 at #2, but this evidence comes from a Reddit snippet rather than a full benchmark report ^[18].

• Kimi K2.6 is described as a leading open-model refresh, but the provided evidence does not include enough numeric Kimi K2.6 scores to compare it comprehensively with GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.7, or DeepSeek V4 ^[1].

Benchmark comparison table

Benchmark / capability	GPT-5.5	GPT-5.5 Pro	Claude Opus 4.7	DeepSeek V4	Kimi K2.6	Leader in available evidence
GPQA Diamond	93.6% [4]	Insufficient evidence	94.2% [4]	90.1% for DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max [4]	Insufficient evidence	Claude Opus 4.7 [4]
Humanity’s Last Exam, no tools	41.4% [4]	43.1% [4]	46.9% [4]	37.7% for DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max [4]	Insufficient evidence	Claude Opus 4.7 [4]
Humanity’s Last Exam, with tools	52.2% [4]	57.2% [4]	54.7% [4]	48.2% for DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max [4]	Insufficient evidence	GPT-5.5 Pro [4]
Terminal-Bench 2.0	82.7% [4][5]	Insufficient evidence	69.4% [4][5]	67.9% for DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max [4]	Insufficient evidence	GPT-5.5 [4][5]
OSWorld-Verified	78.7% [5]	Insufficient evidence	78.0% [5]	Insufficient evidence	Insufficient evidence	GPT-5.5 [5]
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3	51.7% [5]	Insufficient evidence	43.8% [5]	Insufficient evidence	Insufficient evidence	GPT-5.5 [5]
Vision & Document Arena	Insufficient evidence	Insufficient evidence	Reported #1 overall [1]	Insufficient evidence	Insufficient evidence	Claude Opus 4.7 [1]
Vibe Code Benchmark	Insufficient evidence	Insufficient evidence	Insufficient evidence	Claimed #1 open-weight model [18]	Claimed #2 open-weight model [18]	DeepSeek V4 among open-weight models, low-confidence evidence [18]
Context window	Insufficient evidence	Insufficient evidence	1,000k tokens in one cited comparison [3]	1,000k tokens for DeepSeek V4 Pro in one cited comparison [3]	Insufficient evidence	Tie between Claude Opus 4.7 and DeepSeek V4 Pro in available evidence [3]

Model-by-model assessment

GPT-5.5

• GPT-5.5’s clearest advantage is agentic computing and operational task performance, led by its 82.7% Terminal-Bench 2.0 score ^[4][5].

• GPT-5.5 also edges Claude Opus 4.7 on OSWorld-Verified, 78.7% versus 78.0% ^[5].

• GPT-5.5 shows a larger advantage over Claude Opus 4.7 on FrontierMath Tiers 1–3, 51.7% versus 43.8% ^[5].

• GPT-5.5 trails Claude Opus 4.7 on GPQA Diamond by 0.6 points, 93.6% versus 94.2% ^[4].

• GPT-5.5 Pro is the best cited model on Humanity’s Last Exam with tools, scoring 57.2% versus Claude Opus 4.7 at 54.7% ^[4].

• Additional GPT-5.5-only domain benchmarks include 91.7% on Harvey BigLaw Bench with 43% perfect scores, 88.5% on an internal investment-banking benchmark, and 80.5% on BixBench bioinformatics ^[7]. These results are not directly comparable to the other three models because the provided excerpt does not include their scores on those same benchmarks ^[7].

Claude Opus 4.7

• Claude Opus 4.7 is the strongest cited model on GPQA Diamond, scoring 94.2% ^[4].

• Claude Opus 4.7 is also the strongest cited model on Humanity’s Last Exam without tools, scoring 46.9% ^[4].

• Claude Opus 4.7 ranks below GPT-5.5 Pro on Humanity’s Last Exam with tools, 54.7% versus 57.2% ^[4].

• Claude Opus 4.7 trails GPT-5.5 on Terminal-Bench 2.0 by more than 13 points, 69.4% versus 82.7% ^[4][5].

• Claude Opus 4.7 is reported #1 in Vision & Document Arena and is said to lead in diagram, homework, and OCR subcategories ^[1].

• Claude Opus 4.7 has a cited 1,000k-token context window in an Artificial Analysis comparison with DeepSeek V4 Pro ^[3].

DeepSeek V4

• DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max is competitive but trails GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.7 on the cited GPQA Diamond, Humanity’s Last Exam, and Terminal-Bench 2.0 results ^[4].

• DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max scores 90.1% on GPQA Diamond, 37.7% on Humanity’s Last Exam without tools, 48.2% on Humanity’s Last Exam with tools, and 67.9% on Terminal-Bench 2.0 ^[4].

• DeepSeek V4 is described as delivering near state-of-the-art intelligence at about one-sixth the cost of Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5, but the excerpt does not provide enough detail to verify cost normalization or workload assumptions ^[4].

• DeepSeek V4 Pro is cited with a 1,000k-token context window in a comparison against Claude Opus 4.7 ^[3].

• A Reddit snippet claims DeepSeek V4 is the #1 open-weight model on a Vibe Code Benchmark and ranks above Kimi K2.6, but this should be treated as low-confidence evidence because the provided excerpt lacks a full methodology or score table ^[18].

Kimi K2.6

• Kimi K2.6 has the weakest quantitative coverage in the available evidence ^[1][18].

• One source describes Kimi K2.6 as a leading open-model refresh, but the provided excerpt does not expose benchmark scores that can be compared against GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.7, or DeepSeek V4 ^[1].

• The only direct Kimi ranking in the available evidence is a Reddit snippet claiming Kimi K2.6 is #2 behind DeepSeek V4 on a Vibe Code Benchmark among open-weight models ^[18].

• Insufficient evidence: the provided material does not support a comprehensive numerical evaluation of Kimi K2.6 across reasoning, math, coding, agentic-computing, multimodal, or long-context benchmarks.

Evidence notes

• The most usable quantitative cross-model evidence comes from the cited table comparing DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max, GPT-5.5, GPT-5.5 Pro where available, and Claude Opus 4.7 across GPQA Diamond, Humanity’s Last Exam, and Terminal-Bench 2.0 ^[4].

• GPT-5.5 versus Claude Opus 4.7 is additionally supported by a separate source reporting the same Terminal-Bench 2.0 figures and adding OSWorld-Verified and FrontierMath results ^[5].

• The cited Artificial Analysis comparison provides context-window information for DeepSeek V4 Pro and Claude Opus 4.7, both listed at 1,000k tokens in that comparison ^[3].

• The Vision & Document Arena evidence supports Claude Opus 4.7’s multimodal/document strength, but it does not provide numeric scores for GPT-5.5, DeepSeek V4, or Kimi K2.6 ^[1].

• The Mashable and Design for Online snippets do not provide benchmark values in the supplied evidence, so they cannot support quantitative conclusions here ^[2][6].

Limitations / uncertainty

• Insufficient evidence: no primary model cards, official benchmark reports, full prompt settings, confidence intervals, or independent reproducibility details are included in the provided evidence.

• Insufficient evidence: Kimi K2.6 lacks numeric benchmark coverage in the provided excerpts, so any Kimi ranking beyond the Vibe Code claim is unsupported ^[1][18].

• The benchmark comparisons mix model variants and modes, including GPT-5.5, GPT-5.5 Pro, DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max, DeepSeek V4 Pro, and Claude Opus 4.7 with differing reasoning or effort settings ^[3][4].

• The Vibe Code claim for DeepSeek V4 and Kimi K2.6 is low confidence because the available evidence is a Reddit snippet without benchmark scores or methodology ^[18].

• The cost-performance claim for DeepSeek V4 is promising but under-specified because the provided evidence reports “1/6th the cost” without enough details to normalize by token pricing, latency, benchmark workload, or deployment assumptions ^[4].

Summary

• Best cited reasoning/science model: Claude Opus 4.7, based on GPQA Diamond and Humanity’s Last Exam without tools ^[4].

• Best cited tool-augmented exam result: GPT-5.5 Pro, based on Humanity’s Last Exam with tools ^[4].

• Best cited terminal/agentic-computing model: GPT-5.5, based on Terminal-Bench 2.0 ^[4][5].

• Best cited OS/world-operation and math results between GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.7: GPT-5.5, based on OSWorld-Verified and FrontierMath ^[5].

• Best cited multimodal/document model: Claude Opus 4.7, based on Vision & Document Arena reporting ^[1].

• Best cited open-weight coding claim: DeepSeek V4 over Kimi K2.6 on Vibe Code, but this is low-confidence because the evidence is only a Reddit snippet ^[18].

• Most under-evidenced model: Kimi K2.6, because the provided evidence does not include enough quantitative benchmark results for a comprehensive comparison ^[1][18].