Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Claude Fable 5
Claude Fable 5 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Claude Fable 5 vs Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Updated October 20, 2026. Rank says Claude Fable 5 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 has the higher public point estimate, 81.35 versus 56.18. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 2 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Model B
Moonshot AI
56.18/100
Estimated · Public rank #64
Conditional range 41.8–70.5
- Shared results
- 2
- Claude Fable 5 only
- 23
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) only
- 13
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Supported: Claude Fable 5 · Estimated: Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning). Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How 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 (Reasoning)
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) 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 (Reasoning)
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) 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 (Reasoning)
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) 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 (Reasoning) is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) 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.
71.3Claude Fable 5—Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8
The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.
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.
23 Claude Fable 5 only
2 Shared
13 Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) only
2 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.
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic
Normalized gap 21.7Claude Fable 5:85%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning):63.3%SWE-bench VerifiedCoding
Normalized gap 18.2Claude Fable 5:95%Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning):76.8%
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
- 75.8
- Supported · #6/131
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- 38.8
- Estimated · #71/131
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Claude Fable 5
- 82.6
- Supported · #6/187
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- 48.9
- Estimated · #87/187
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- 71.3
- Supported · #7/152
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 10 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- 84.3
- Unranked · 4 rankable rows
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- 66.3
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- 66.0
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- 69.0
- #34/55
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not ranked
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- 77.1
- #63/149
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- 96.0
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Fable 5 | Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 75.8Supported · #6/131 | 38.8Estimated · #71/131 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 4 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 82.6Supported · #6/187 | 48.9Estimated · #87/187 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 2 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 71.3Supported · #7/152 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 10 vs 4 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 84.3Unranked · 4 rankable rows | 66.3Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 66.0Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 69.0#34/55 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 77.1#63/149 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 96.0Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 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
- $0.035
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- $0.0021
- Fits in one request
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Fable 5
- $0.65
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- $0.039
- Fits in one request
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) 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
- $0.9
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
- $0.162
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has the lower modeled cost
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) 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 5Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Fable 5
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
256K
API model ID
Claude Fable 5
claude-fable-5
Anthropic model overviewKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
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 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude API pricingKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Not published
Documented inputs
Claude Fable 5
text, image
Anthropic model overviewKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Fable 5
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Fable 5
Generally Available · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Fable 5
Reasoning
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Fable 5
Proprietary
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Proprietary
License
Claude Fable 5
Proprietary
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
Proprietary
Release date
Claude Fable 5
2026-06-09
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
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 has the higher public point estimate, 81.35 versus 56.18. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.65 vs $0.039. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.9 vs $0.162.
- Context tradeoff
- Claude Fable 5 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 or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?
Claude Fable 5 has the higher public point estimate, 81.35 versus 56.18. 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.
Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5 or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?
Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?
Claude Fable 5 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 75.8 to 38.8. Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) 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 or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.035 on Claude Fable 5 and $0.0021 on Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning); repository review costs $0.65 and $0.039; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.9 and $0.162. Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5 or Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)?
Claude Fable 5 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence38 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 3.0
Claude Fable 534.0%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Fable 584.3%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Fable 585%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)63.3%SourceClaude Fable 5 leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Fable 580.5%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
ApprenticeBench
Claude Fable 534%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
MazeBench
Claude Fable 511%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Fable 5—Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)50.8%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Fable 5—Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)60.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Fable 5—Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)32.58%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Fable 595%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)76.8%SourceClaude Fable 5 leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Fable 580%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Claude Fable 547.0%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Fable 553.5%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Fable 584.3%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
cursorBench31
Claude Fable 570.6%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
CursorBench 3.2
Claude Fable 570.5%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Claude Fable 589.5%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Fable 589.8%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Claude Fable 595.0%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Claude Fable 5—Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)85.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Fable 5—Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)50.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Claude Fable 5—Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)17.54%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Multimodal
ParseBench
Claude Fable 570.78%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
Blueprint-Bench 2
Claude Fable 538.6%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
OfficeQA Pro
Claude Fable 557.9%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Claude Fable 5—Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)78.5%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Fable 5—Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)77.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Claude Fable 593.2%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Claude Fable 591.5%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
GPQA
Claude Fable 5—Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)87.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Claude Fable 5—Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)87.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Claude Fable 587.018%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Claude Fable 590.200%SourceKimi K2.5 (Reasoning)—Not directly comparable
AIME 2025
Claude Fable 5—Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)96.1%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
Claude Fable 5—Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)95.4%SourceNot directly comparable
38 public results · 2 shared
Watch Claude Fable 5 vs Kimi K2.5 (Reasoning)
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 20, 2026