Updated October 17, 2026. Rank says Claude Fable 5.1 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Claude Fable 5.1 has the higher public point estimate, 83.18 versus 58.4. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 10 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Claude Fable 5.1
Claude Fable 5.1 has the higher public coding point estimate, 76.8 to 43.1, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Claude Fable 5.1
Claude Fable 5.1 has the higher public agentic point estimate, 80.9 to 44.3, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Claude Fable 5.1
Claude Fable 5.1 has the larger documented context window.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Kimi K2.6
Kimi K2.6 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Kimi K2.6
Kimi K2.6 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Kimi K2.6
Kimi K2.6 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8
Claude Fable 5.1 has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Math
Normalized gap 62.2OSWorld 2.0Agentic
Normalized gap 37.1FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Math
Normalized gap 33.0HLEKnowledge
Normalized gap 30.3SWE-bench ProCoding
Normalized gap 22.6Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
| Category | Claude Fable 5.1 | Kimi K2.6 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 80.9Supported · #2/128 | 44.3Supported · #59/128 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 12 vs 12 public rows | Claude Fable 5.1 leads |
| Coding | 76.8Supported · #3/150 | 43.1Supported · #58/150 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 11 vs 10 public rows | Claude Fable 5.1 leads |
| Knowledge | 86.9Supported · #2/184 | 60.3Supported · #49/184 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 5 public rows | Claude Fable 5.1 leads |
| Reasoning | 85.2#4/28 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 73.8#27/54 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 96.8Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 76.8#4/12 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 4 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Kimi K2.6 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Kimi K2.6 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Kimi K2.6 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Fable 5.1
Kimi K2.6
256K
Claude Fable 5.1
claude-fable-5-1
Anthropic Fable 5.1 and Mythos 5.1 launchKimi K2.6
Not sourced
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Fable 5.1
$0.25 per 1M cached input tokens
Anthropic Fable 5.1 launchKimi K2.6
$0.16 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude Fable 5.1
Not sourced
Kimi K2.6
Not sourced
Claude Fable 5.1
Not sourced
Kimi K2.6
Not sourced
Claude Fable 5.1
Generally Available · Claude API, Claude products, AWS, Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure
Anthropic Fable 5.1 and Mythos 5.1 launchKimi K2.6
Not sourced
Claude Fable 5.1
Reasoning
Kimi K2.6
Reasoning
Claude Fable 5.1
Proprietary
Kimi K2.6
Open Weight
Claude Fable 5.1
Proprietary
Kimi K2.6
Open Weight
Claude Fable 5.1
2026-09-01
Kimi K2.6
2026-04-20
Claude Fable 5.1 has the higher public point estimate, 83.18 versus 58.4. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Claude Fable 5.1 has the higher public coding point estimate, 76.8 to 43.1, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Claude Fable 5.1 has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 80.9 to 44.3, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.035 on Claude Fable 5.1 and $0.00295 on Kimi K2.6; repository review costs $0.65 and $0.0595; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.75 and $0.091. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Claude Fable 5.1 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1
Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result
AutomationBench
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass@3
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass³
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified avg. turns
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result
ApprenticeBench
Not directly comparable
CWE-bench v1
Not directly comparable
MazeBench
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Not directly comparable
WideResearch
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Not directly comparable
Bug Hunt Bench
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result
SWE Multimodal
Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Not directly comparable
ProgramBench
Not directly comparable
CursorBench 3.2
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result
CursorBench 4.0
Not directly comparable
PostTrainBench v1.1
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Not directly comparable
SciCode
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Not directly comparable
cursorBench31
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ Python
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Not directly comparable
MathVision
Not directly comparable
V*
Not directly comparable
HLE
Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result
GPQA
Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Not directly comparable
Gray Swan IPI (15 attempts)
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Shared sourceClaude Fable 5.1 leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Shared sourceClaude Fable 5.1 leads this result
AIME26
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Not directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Not directly comparable
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 5,600+ readers.
Last updated October 17, 2026
