CodePanel

Kimi K2.7 Code (Workers AI) vs Claude Opus 5.5

Reading a 26.2K-token pull request costs $0.1048 on Claude Opus 5.5, 4.2× the $0.0249 it costs on Kimi K2.7 Code (Workers AI). Kimi K2.7 Code (Workers AI) is a mid-range model and Claude Opus 5.5 a frontier one. In the benchmark Claude Opus 5.5 caught 52 percentage points more of the known defects than Kimi K2.7 Code (Workers AI) (95% interval −63 pts to −41 pts, a − b).

Side by side

Kimi K2.7 Code (Workers AI) and Claude Opus 5.5 side by side
FigureKimi K2.7 Code (Workers AI)Claude Opus 5.5
Price tierMid-rangeFrontier
Bugs caughtshare of known bugs38%90% (better)
False alarmsper clean PR2.61.7 (better)
Cost per reviewmeasured$0.0567 (better)$0.1525
Cost per bug caught$0.0805 (better)$0.1921
Exact linecatches on the expected lines79%89% (better)
Review timemean610s33s (better)
Typical review calllist price$0.0346 (better)$0.1532
Input / 1M tokens$0.95 (better)$4.00
Output / 1M tokens$4.00 (better)$20.00
Context window262.1K1M

Head to head

The known bugs both were scored on, by who caught each in at least one run.

Of 42 known bugs both were scored on: Both 31Only Kimi K2.7 Code (Workers AI) 2Only Claude Opus 5.5 8Neither 1

By language

Share of known bugs each model caught, by language
ModelAllTypeScript6 bugsGo4 bugsJava4 bugsRust4 bugsC#3 bugsJavaScript3 bugsKotlin3 bugsPHP3 bugsPython3 bugsRuby3 bugsSwift3 bugsC++2 bugsC1 bug
Kimi K2.7 Code (Workers AI)38%75%26%31%46%19%8%14%42%62%33%46%6%40%
Claude Opus 5.590%100%50%78%100%100%100%67%100%100%89%100%100%100%

Where they differ

Of the 42 known bugs both were scored on, both caught 31 and neither caught 1. Kimi K2.7 Code (Workers AI) caught 2 bugs that Claude Opus 5.5 missed: 1 in Go and 1 in Kotlin. Claude Opus 5.5 caught 8 bugs that Kimi K2.7 Code (Workers AI) missed: 2 in JavaScript, 2 in Ruby, 1 in C++, 1 in C#, 1 in Java and 1 in Rust.

On pull requests with no known bug, Kimi K2.7 Code (Workers AI) raised 2.6 false alarms per review and Claude Opus 5.5 1.7. A measured review cost $0.0567 on Kimi K2.7 Code (Workers AI), 63% less than $0.1525 on Claude Opus 5.5.

Each known bug, and how often each model caught it
Pull requestLanguage · kindKimi K2.7 Code (Workers AI)Claude Opus 5.5
go-gitea/giteaperf(gitdiff): optimize inline diff highlighting using cacheGo · Error handling1/40/1
kotest/kotestFix DataClassEq comparatorKotlin · Logic1/70/1
denoland/denoperf(libs/core): poll only ready handles and yield between I/O batchesRust · Concurrency0/51/1
dotnet/orleansfix(serialization): cap codec allocationsC# · Logic0/71/1
ggml-org/llama.cpprpc : cache and reuse compute graphsC++ · Security0/51/1
jhy/jsoupStore cached child els in Attributes, not fieldJava · Concurrency0/161/2
pinojs/thread-streamrefactor: replace setTimeout with Atomics.waitAsyncJavaScript · Concurrency0/81/1
rails/railsReimplement Action Cable redis adapter with redis-clientRuby · Logic0/52/3
sindresorhus/p-throttleAdd `weight` optionJavaScript · Logic0/81/1
socketry/asyncBarrier wait in completion order + `Queue#close`.Ruby · Concurrency0/51/1

Defects caught over all runs: a PR reviewed three times with one known bug shows 3/3 when it was caught every time.

Every bug each was scored on: Kimi K2.7 Code (Workers AI) and Claude Opus 5.5.