Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Claude Fable 5.1
Claude Fable 5.1 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K2.5
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.
Share or export
Decision reading
Claude Fable 5.1 has the higher public score, 83.18 versus 53.05, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. 3 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 3
- Claude Fable 5.1 only
- 30
- Kimi K2.5 only
- 65
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Supported: Claude Fable 5.1 and Kimi K2.5How the comparison works
Which one for your work
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.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Kimi K2.5
Kimi K2.5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Kimi K2.5
Kimi K2.5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Kimi K2.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Kimi K2.5
Kimi K2.5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesCoding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Kimi K2.5 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Kimi K2.5 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Which one for a specific job
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.
76.8Claude Fable 5.138.5Kimi K2.5
Directional only · 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.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
30 Claude Fable 5.1 only
3 Shared
65 Kimi K2.5 only
3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Shape of the matched evidence
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.
HLEKnowledge
Normalized gap 34.9Claude Fable 5.1:65%Kimi K2.5:30.1%SWE-bench ProCoding
Normalized gap 30.5Claude Fable 5.1:81.2%Kimi K2.5:50.7%SWE MultilingualCoding
Normalized gap 16.1Claude Fable 5.1:89.1%Kimi K2.5:73%
Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale
Category results, on a stated basis
Each 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.
Agentic
Directional only- Claude Fable 5.1
- 80.9
- Supported · #2/128
- Kimi K2.5
- 40.7
- Estimated · #66/128
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 12 vs 16 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- Claude Fable 5.1
- 76.8
- Supported · #3/150
- Kimi K2.5
- 38.5
- Estimated · #68/150
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 11 vs 10 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Claude Fable 5.1
- 86.9
- Supported · #2/184
- Kimi K2.5
- 51.4
- Estimated · #75/184
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 8 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- 85.2
- #4/28
- Kimi K2.5
- 72.2
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- Not ranked
- Kimi K2.5
- 70.4
- #32/54
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- Not ranked
- Kimi K2.5
- 87.3
- #8/17
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- Not ranked
- Kimi K2.5
- 85.8
- #48/148
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- 96.8
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Kimi K2.5
- 83.3
- Unranked · 7 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Fable 5.1 | Kimi K2.5 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 80.9Supported · #2/128 | 40.7Estimated · #66/128 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 12 vs 16 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 76.8Supported · #3/150 | 38.5Estimated · #68/150 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 11 vs 10 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 86.9Supported · #2/184 | 51.4Estimated · #75/184 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 8 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 85.2#4/28 | 72.2Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 70.4#32/54 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | 87.3#8/17 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 85.8#48/148 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 96.8Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 83.3Unranked · 7 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 2 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.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
What each workload costs
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.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude Fable 5.1
- $0.035
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K2.5
- $0.0021
- Fits in one request
Kimi K2.5 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Fable 5.1
- $0.65
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K2.5
- $0.039
- Fits in one request
Kimi K2.5 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Fable 5.1
- $0.75
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K2.5
- $0.162
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Kimi K2.5 has the lower modeled cost
Kimi K2.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Fable 5.1Kimi K2.5
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Fable 5.1
Kimi K2.5
256K
API model ID
Claude Fable 5.1
claude-fable-5-1
Anthropic Fable 5.1 and Mythos 5.1 launchKimi K2.5
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
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 K2.5
Not published
Documented inputs
Claude Fable 5.1
Not sourced
Kimi K2.5
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Fable 5.1
Not sourced
Kimi K2.5
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Fable 5.1
Generally Available · Claude API, Claude products, AWS, Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure
Anthropic Fable 5.1 and Mythos 5.1 launchKimi K2.5
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Fable 5.1
Reasoning
Kimi K2.5
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Fable 5.1
Proprietary
Kimi K2.5
Open Weight
License
Claude Fable 5.1
Proprietary
Kimi K2.5
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Fable 5.1
2026-09-01
Kimi K2.5
2026-01-27
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Claude Fable 5.1 has the higher public score, 83.18 versus 53.05, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.65 vs $0.039. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.75 vs $0.162.
- Context tradeoff
- Claude Fable 5.1 has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or Kimi K2.5?
Claude Fable 5.1 has the higher public score, 83.18 versus 53.05, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5.1 or Kimi K2.5?
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 76.8 to 38.5. Kimi K2.5 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5.1 or Kimi K2.5?
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 80.9 to 40.7. Kimi K2.5 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Claude Fable 5.1 or Kimi K2.5?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.035 on Claude Fable 5.1 and $0.0021 on Kimi K2.5; repository review costs $0.65 and $0.039; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.75 and $0.162. Kimi K2.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5.1 or Kimi K2.5?
Claude Fable 5.1 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Claude Fable 5.1
API / mo$45,000
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Kimi K2.5
API / mo$2,700
Self-host / mo$7,358
Break-even186M/day
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence98 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Claude Fable 5.155.80%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1
Claude Fable 5.152.6%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Fable 5.141.7%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
Claude Fable 5.131.4%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Fable 5.177.8%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass@3
Claude Fable 5.181.5%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass³
Claude Fable 5.173.1%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified avg. turns
Claude Fable 5.123.7 turnsSourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Fable 5.185.0%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
ApprenticeBench
Claude Fable 5.172%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
CWE-bench v1
Claude Fable 5.158.0%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
MazeBench
Claude Fable 5.110%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.550.8%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.560.6%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.563.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.552.3%SourceNot directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.554.3%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.565.7%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.577.1%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.514.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.527.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.529.5%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP-Tasks
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.559.1%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.572.7%SourceNot directly comparable
BFCL v4
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.568.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.545.88%SourceNot directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.514.0%SourceNot directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.58.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Bug Hunt Bench
Claude Fable 5.143.0 fixesSourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Fable 5.181.2%SourceKimi K2.550.7%SourceClaude Fable 5.1 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Fable 5.189.1%SourceKimi K2.573%SourceClaude Fable 5.1 leads this result
SWE Multimodal
Claude Fable 5.154.7%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Claude Fable 5.167.4%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Claude Fable 5.156.3%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
ProgramBench
Claude Fable 5.187.6%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
CursorBench 3.2
Claude Fable 5.173.4%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Fable 5.190.5%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
CursorBench 4.0
Claude Fable 5.151.8%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
PostTrainBench v1.1
Claude Fable 5.140.2%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.576.8%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified*
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.570.8%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.585.0%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-Rebench
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.558.5%SourceNot directly comparable
React Native Evals
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.577.2%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.532%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.548.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.550.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Multimodal
MMMU
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.584.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.578.5%SourceNot directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.581.0%SourceNot directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.588.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Video-MME
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.587.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.587.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Video-MME (w/o subtitle)
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.583.2%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.584.2%SourceNot directly comparable
We-Math
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.584.7%SourceNot directly comparable
DynaMath
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.584.4%SourceNot directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.571.2%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLongBench-Doc
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.558.5%SourceNot directly comparable
CC-OCR
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.579.7%SourceNot directly comparable
AI2D_TEST
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.590.8%SourceNot directly comparable
CountBench
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.594.1%SourceNot directly comparable
RefCOCO (avg)
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.587.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MMVU
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.580.4%SourceNot directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.586.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.585.0%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.577.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
HLE
Claude Fable 5.165%SourceKimi K2.530.1%SourceClaude Fable 5.1 leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Claude Fable 5.160.9%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Claude Fable 5.193.4%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Claude Fable 5.192.4%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
GPQA
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.587.6%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA-D
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.587.6%SourceNot directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.569.2%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.587.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.587.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.594.5%SourceNot directly comparable
C-Eval
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.594%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
MMLU-ProX
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.582.3%SourceNot directly comparable
NOVA-63
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.556.0%SourceNot directly comparable
INCLUDE
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.583.3%SourceNot directly comparable
PolyMath
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.543.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MAXIFE
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.572.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
Math
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Claude Fable 5.190.175%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Claude Fable 5.187.805%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
AIME 2025
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.596.1%SourceNot directly comparable
AIME26
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.595.8%SourceNot directly comparable
AIME25 (Arcee)
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.596.3%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.595.4%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.591.1%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.587.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Claude Fable 5.1—Kimi K2.581.8%SourceNot directly comparable
98 public results · 3 shared
Watch Claude Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K2.5
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