GPT-5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.7 vs DeepSeek V4 vs Kimi K2.6: Benchmark Winners by Category
No single model wins the sourced benchmark set: Claude Opus 4.7 leads GPQA Diamond at 94.2% and no tools Humanity’s Last Exam at 46.9%, GPT 5.5 leads Terminal Bench 2.0 at 82.7%, and GPT 5.5 Pro leads tool assisted HL... DeepSeek V4 Pro Max is competitive in the shared table but does not lead any listed row; its big...
No single model wins the sourced benchmark set: Claude Opus 4.7 leads GPQA Diamond at 94.2% and no tools Humanity’s Last Exam at 46.9%, GPT 5.5 leads Terminal Bench 2.0 at 82.7%, and GPT 5.5 Pro leads tool assisted HL...
DeepSeek V4 Pro Max is competitive in the shared table but does not lead any listed row; its biggest cited advantage is VentureBeat’s cost performance framing at about one sixth the cost of Opus 4.7 and GPT 5.5 [4].
Treat close wins as directional because the sources mix base and Pro modes, DeepSeek variants, separate Kimi comparisons, and vendor reported or research environment settings [3][5][8][11][13].
GPT-5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.7 vs DeepSeek V4 vs Kimi K2.6: Benchmark Winners by CategoryAI-generated editorial illustration for comparing frontier model benchmark winners by category.
AI Prompt
Create a landscape editorial hero image for this Studio Global article: GPT-5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.7 vs DeepSeek V4 vs Kimi K2.6: Benchmark Winners by Category. Article summary: No single model wins across the available 2026 benchmark evidence: Claude Opus 4.7 leads GPQA Diamond at 94.2% and Humanity’s Last Exam without tools at 46.9%, GPT 5.5 leads Terminal Bench 2.0 at 82.7%, and GPT 5.5 Pr.... Topic tags: ai, llm benchmarks, openai, anthropic, deepseek. Reference image context from search candidates: Reference image 1: visual subject "Kimi K2.6 ties GPT-5.5 on SWE-bench Pro at 5–6x lower cost — with agent swarms, 13-hour autonomous runs, and open weights. In practice it is the first open-source model that can su" source context "Kimi K2.6: The Complete Developer Guide (2026) - Codersera" Reference image 2: visual subject "# Kimi K2.6 vs DeepSeek V4 vs GPT-5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.7: Which S
openai.com
Benchmark tables make this four-way matchup look easier than it is. The strongest shared table covers GPT-5.5, GPT-5.5 Pro where available, Claude Opus 4.7, and DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max; Kimi K2.6 appears mainly in separate comparisons, so it is less cleanly comparable across every category . The right conclusion is category-specific: pick the benchmark that resembles your workload, then test the finalists on your own prompts.
Winners at a glance
Workload
Best-supported pick
Why
Science reasoning
Claude Opus 4.7
94.2% on GPQA Diamond, ahead of GPT-5.5 at 93.6% and DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max at 90.1%
No-tools expert reasoning
Claude Opus 4.7
46.9% on Humanity’s Last Exam without tools, ahead of GPT-5.5 Pro at 43.1%, GPT-5.5 at 41.4%, and DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max at 37.7%
Studio Global AI
Continue your research
This page includes a source-backed answer you can continue inside Studio Global.
What is the short answer to "GPT-5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.7 vs DeepSeek V4 vs Kimi K2.6: Benchmark Winners by Category"?
No single model wins the sourced benchmark set: Claude Opus 4.7 leads GPQA Diamond at 94.2% and no tools Humanity’s Last Exam at 46.9%, GPT 5.5 leads Terminal Bench 2.0 at 82.7%, and GPT 5.5 Pro leads tool assisted HL...
What are the key points to validate first?
No single model wins the sourced benchmark set: Claude Opus 4.7 leads GPQA Diamond at 94.2% and no tools Humanity’s Last Exam at 46.9%, GPT 5.5 leads Terminal Bench 2.0 at 82.7%, and GPT 5.5 Pro leads tool assisted HL... DeepSeek V4 Pro Max is competitive in the shared table but does not lead any listed row; its biggest cited advantage is VentureBeat’s cost performance framing at about one sixth the cost of Opus 4.7 and GPT 5.5 [4].
What should I do next in practice?
Treat close wins as directional because the sources mix base and Pro modes, DeepSeek variants, separate Kimi comparisons, and vendor reported or research environment settings [3][5][8][11][13].
57.2% on Humanity’s Last Exam with tools, ahead of Claude Opus 4.7 at 54.7%
Terminal and agentic computing
GPT-5.5
82.7% on Terminal-Bench 2.0, ahead of Claude Opus 4.7 at 69.4% and DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max at 67.9%
OS operation
GPT-5.5
78.7% on OSWorld-Verified versus Claude Opus 4.7 at 78.0%
Frontier math
GPT-5.5
51.7% on FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 versus Claude Opus 4.7 at 43.8%
Software engineering in the shared table
Claude Opus 4.7
64.3% on SWE-Bench Pro / SWE Pro, ahead of GPT-5.5 at 58.6% and DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max at 55.4%
Browsing
GPT-5.5 Pro
90.1% on BrowseComp, ahead of GPT-5.5 at 84.4%, DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max at 83.4%, and Claude Opus 4.7 at 79.3%
MCP-style public tool workflow
Claude Opus 4.7
79.1% on MCP Atlas / MCPAtlas Public, ahead of GPT-5.5 at 75.3% and DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max at 73.6%
Vision and document analysis
Claude Opus 4.7
Reported #1 in Vision & Document Arena, with wins in diagram, homework, and OCR subcategories
Cost-sensitive evaluation
DeepSeek V4
VentureBeat reports near state-of-the-art intelligence at about one-sixth the cost of Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5, but that cost claim should be validated on your own workload
Least clean four-way comparison
Kimi K2.6
Kimi has useful reported scores, but the cited Kimi evidence is mostly separate from the GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.7, and DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max table
Detailed benchmark table
Benchmark / capability
GPT-5.5
GPT-5.5 Pro
Claude Opus 4.7
DeepSeek V4 / V4 Pro Max
Kimi K2.6
Best-supported read
GPQA Diamond
93.6%
Not reported
94.2%
90.1% for DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max
Not reported
Claude leads the shared table
Humanity’s Last Exam, no tools
41.4%
43.1%
46.9%
37.7% for DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max
Not reported
Claude leads the shared table
Humanity’s Last Exam, with tools
52.2%
57.2%
54.7%
48.2% for DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max
54.0% in a separate Kimi comparison
GPT-5.5 Pro leads the shared table
Terminal-Bench 2.0
82.7%
Not reported
69.4%
67.9% for DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max
66.7% in a separate Kimi comparison
GPT-5.5 leads
SWE-Bench Pro / SWE Pro
58.6%
Not reported
64.3%
55.4% for DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max
58.6% in a separate Kimi comparison
Claude leads the shared table
BrowseComp
84.4%
90.1%
79.3%
83.4% for DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max ; 83.4% for DeepSeek-V4 Pro in another comparison
83.2% in a Kimi vs DeepSeek comparison
GPT-5.5 Pro leads the shared table
MCP Atlas / MCPAtlas Public
75.3%
Not reported
79.1%
73.6% for DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max
Not reported
Claude leads
OSWorld-Verified
78.7%
Not reported
78.0%
Not reported
Not reported
GPT-5.5 leads Claude by a small margin
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3
51.7%
Not reported
43.8%
Not reported
Not reported
GPT-5.5 leads Claude
Vision & Document Arena
Not reported
Not reported
Reported #1 overall
Not reported
Not reported
Claude has the only cited result
AIME 2026
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not available in the cited Kimi vs DeepSeek table
96.4% in Thinking mode
Useful Kimi signal, not a four-way ranking
APEX Agents
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not available in the cited Kimi vs DeepSeek table
27.9% in Thinking mode
Useful Kimi signal, not a four-way ranking
Context window
Not reported
Not reported
1,000k tokens in one Artificial Analysis comparison
1,000k tokens for DeepSeek V4 Pro in the same comparison
Not reported
Claude and DeepSeek V4 Pro match in that comparison
Rows that mix sources should be read carefully. A Kimi score reported in a separate Kimi-focused comparison is useful, but it is not as strong as a result produced in the same shared table and harness as GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.7, and DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max .
GPT-5.5: strongest on terminal, OS, math, and tool use
GPT-5.5’s clearest win is Terminal-Bench 2.0: 82.7% versus Claude Opus 4.7 at 69.4% and DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max at 67.9% in the shared table . That is one of the largest gaps in the sourced benchmark set.
It also leads Claude Opus 4.7 on OSWorld-Verified, but by a narrow 78.7% to 78.0% margin . On FrontierMath Tiers 1–3, the GPT-5.5 lead is larger: 51.7% versus Claude’s 43.8% .
GPT-5.5 Pro changes the picture when tools or browsing are central. It leads Humanity’s Last Exam with tools 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% . It also leads BrowseComp at 90.1%, ahead of GPT-5.5 at 84.4%, DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max at 83.4%, and Claude Opus 4.7 at 79.3% .
GPT-5.5 does not lead every reasoning test. Claude Opus 4.7 narrowly beats it on GPQA Diamond, 94.2% to 93.6%, in the shared table . A separate GPT-5.5 guide reports GPT-5.5-only domain results including 91.7% on Harvey BigLaw Bench, 88.5% on an internal investment-banking benchmark, and 80.5% on BixBench, but those should not be treated as four-way wins because the cited excerpt does not report the same scores for Claude Opus 4.7, DeepSeek V4, and Kimi K2.6 .
Claude Opus 4.7: strongest on no-tools reasoning and documents
Claude Opus 4.7 has the best no-tools reasoning profile in the main shared table. It leads GPQA Diamond at 94.2% and Humanity’s Last Exam without tools at 46.9% . It also leads SWE-Bench Pro / SWE Pro at 64.3% and MCP Atlas / MCPAtlas Public at 79.1% in that same table .
Claude’s weaker area in the cited data is terminal-style operation. GPT-5.5 leads Claude by more than 13 points on Terminal-Bench 2.0, 82.7% to 69.4%, and also leads Claude on OSWorld-Verified and FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 .
Claude has the strongest cited multimodal and document signal. One source reports Claude Opus 4.7 taking #1 in Vision & Document Arena, improving by 4 points over Opus 4.6 in Document Arena, and winning diagram, homework, and OCR subcategories . The same source does not provide comparable numeric Vision & Document Arena scores for GPT-5.5, DeepSeek V4, or Kimi K2.6, so this supports Claude’s document strength but not a complete four-way multimodal ranking .
DeepSeek V4: competitive, but the main cited edge is cost-performance
The sources use more than one DeepSeek label. The shared benchmark table reports DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max, while the Artificial Analysis comparison reports DeepSeek V4 Pro with a 1,000k-token context window . Those labels should not be treated as automatically interchangeable.
In the main shared table, DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max is competitive but does not lead any row. It scores 90.1% on GPQA Diamond, 37.7% on Humanity’s Last Exam without tools, 48.2% on Humanity’s Last Exam with tools, 67.9% on Terminal-Bench 2.0, 55.4% on SWE-Bench Pro / SWE Pro, 83.4% on BrowseComp, and 73.6% on MCP Atlas / MCPAtlas Public .
DeepSeek’s strongest cited product claim is cost-performance rather than a category win. VentureBeat describes DeepSeek V4 as delivering near state-of-the-art intelligence at about one-sixth the cost of Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 . That is a reason to test it for cost-sensitive workloads, not a reason to skip workload-level validation.
For long-context screening, one Artificial Analysis comparison lists both DeepSeek V4 Pro and Claude Opus 4.7 at 1,000k-token context windows . That supports parity for those listed configurations, not a broader claim about every DeepSeek or Claude mode .
Kimi K2.6: promising scores, weaker direct comparability
Kimi K2.6 is the hardest model to rank cleanly in this set because it is not included in the main shared table against GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.7, and DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max . A Kimi-focused comparison reports K2.6 at 58.6% on SWE-Bench Pro, 80.2% on SWE-Bench Verified, 66.7% on Terminal-Bench 2.0, 54.0% on Humanity’s Last Exam with tools, and 89.6% on LiveCodeBench v6 . That source says the K2.6 numbers come from a Moonshot AI official model card, but the comparison set is mainly Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.4 rather than the exact four-way lineup here .
A separate Kimi vs DeepSeek comparison reports Kimi K2.6 at 96.4% on AIME 2026 in Thinking mode, 27.9% on APEX Agents in Thinking mode, and 83.2% on BrowseComp with Thinking mode and context management . In that same source, DeepSeek-V4 Pro is listed at 83.4% on BrowseComp, while DeepSeek values are not available for AIME 2026 and APEX Agents .
That makes Kimi worth testing, especially for coding, agentic, and browsing workloads, but the sourced material does not support a clean overall ranking against GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.7 across the same benchmark suite .
Which model should you test first?
Test GPT-5.5 first for terminal-heavy agents, OS-operation tasks, and FrontierMath-like work; it leads the cited Terminal-Bench 2.0, OSWorld-Verified, and FrontierMath results .
Test GPT-5.5 Pro first when tool-augmented reasoning or browsing is central; it leads Humanity’s Last Exam with tools and BrowseComp in the shared table .
Test Claude Opus 4.7 first for GPQA-style science reasoning, no-tools expert Q&A, SWE-Bench Pro-style software engineering, MCP-style workflows, and document-heavy multimodal work .
Test DeepSeek V4 first when cost-performance is the main constraint and you can run your own quality checks; the cited advantage is the reported near-frontier performance at about one-sixth the cost of Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 .
Test Kimi K2.6 first if you specifically want to evaluate its reported coding, agentic, math, and browsing scores, but compare it with the same prompts, tools, context limits, latency targets, and scoring rules you use for the other models .
Benchmark caveats that matter
This is not a universal leaderboard. The sources mix base and Pro variants, including GPT-5.5, GPT-5.5 Pro, DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max, DeepSeek V4 Pro, Claude Opus 4.7, and Kimi K2.6 . Some results are also vendor-reported, and OpenAI notes that its GPT evaluations for ARC were run with reasoning effort set to xhigh in a research environment that may differ from production ChatGPT .
Close margins should be treated as directional. Claude’s GPQA Diamond lead over GPT-5.5 is 0.6 points, and GPT-5.5’s OSWorld-Verified lead over Claude is 0.7 points . Larger gaps are more actionable: GPT-5.5’s Terminal-Bench 2.0 lead over Claude is more than 13 points, and its FrontierMath lead over Claude is 7.9 points .
The practical bottom line: there is no single winner across GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.7, DeepSeek V4, and Kimi K2.6. Use the benchmark category that maps to your real workload, then rerun the same evaluation across the models you can actually deploy.
DeepSeek V4 Pro (Reasoning, Max Effort) vs Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort): Model Comparison
