Claude Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K2.6
Wins 8 of 8 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Images and charts · Math · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 0 of 8 areas
—
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger all-rounder.Kimi K2.6 is cheaper.
Scores updated · 34 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the eight areas we test. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- CodingWriting and fixing software70Claude Fable 5.17 of 7 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own40Claude Fable 5.14 of 4 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking40Claude Fable 5.14 of 4 tests
- MathCompetition and research-level math30Claude Fable 5.13 of 3 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up21Claude Fable 5.12 of 3 tests
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video10Claude Fable 5.11 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Fable 5.11 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10Claude Fable 5.11 of 1 test
Images and charts, long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
Kimi K2.6 costs 92% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Claude Fable 5.1 pulls ahead
- Extremely hard research-level math problemsFrontierMath Tier 4+62.2points ahead
- Complex command-line tasks across many fieldsTerminal-Bench 4.0+51.5points ahead
- Short factual questions, answered correctlySimpleQA Verified+35.9points ahead
Where Kimi K2.6 pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+32.1points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 34 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingClaude Fable 5.1
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Claude Fable 5.1 by 25.591.465.9+25.5
- LMArena · WebDevClaude Fable 5.1 by 233 rating points17421509+233 rating
- SWE-bench ProClaude Fable 5.1 by 22.681.258.6+22.6
- LiveBench · Agentic CodingClaude Fable 5.1 by 19.266.146.9+19.2
- SWE-bench MultilingualClaude Fable 5.1 by 12.489.176.7+12.4
- SciCodeClaude Fable 5.1 by 11.663.151.5+11.6
- LiveBench · CodingClaude Fable 5.1 by 7.886.478.6+7.8
AgentsClaude Fable 5.1
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Claude Fable 5.1 by 51.5520.5+51.5
- GDPValClaude Fable 5.1 by 35.862.726.9+35.8
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingClaude Fable 5.1 by 23.947.223.3+23.9
- AA IT-Bench SREClaude Fable 5.1 by 18.349.531.2+18.3
ReasoningClaude Fable 5.1
- CritPtClaude Fable 5.1 by 21.729.78+21.7
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Fable 5.1 by 21.659.137.5+21.6
- LiveBench · ReasoningClaude Fable 5.1 by 12.391.779.4+12.3
- GPQA DiamondClaude Fable 5.1 by 2.693.791.1+2.6
FactsClaude Fable 5.1
- SimpleQA VerifiedClaude Fable 5.1 by 35.970.834.9+35.9
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Fable 5.1 by 34.667.232.6+34.6
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationKimi K2.6 by 32.127.459.5+32.1
Images and chartsClaude Fable 5.1
- LMArena · VisionClaude Fable 5.1 by 37 rating points13191282+37 rating
MathClaude Fable 5.1
- FrontierMath Tier 4Claude Fable 5.1 by 62.287.825.6+62.2
- FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)Claude Fable 5.1 by 3390.257.2+33
- LiveBench · MathematicsClaude Fable 5.1 by 12.79784.3+12.7
Following instructionsClaude Fable 5.1
- LiveBench · Instruction FollowingClaude Fable 5.1 by 8.67364.4+8.6
Other results10 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- GDPval-AA v2Claude Fable 5.1 by 663 rating points18531190+663 rating
- HiL-Bench (Tools-allowed)Claude Fable 5.1 by 42.861.518.7+42.8
- AA-OmniscienceClaude Fable 5.1 by 38.243.55.3+38.2
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Fable 5.1 by 35.95822.1+35.9
- AA IntelligenceClaude Fable 5.1 by 26.453.427+26.4
- GDPval-AA (Elo)Claude Fable 5.1 by 253 rating points17351482+253 rating
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Fable 5.1 by 19.881.661.8+19.8
- livebench_data_analysisClaude Fable 5.1 by 15.280.365.1+15.2
- livebench_languageClaude Fable 5.1 by 14.489.575.1+14.4
- HLE (with tools)Claude Fable 5.1 by 11.665.654+11.6
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or Kimi K2.6?
Claude Fable 5.1 wins all eight areas we test: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, images and charts, math, long documents and following instructions. Kimi K2.6 wins none, but costs 92% less.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1. It wins 7 of the 7 coding tests both models report; Kimi K2.6 wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Fable 5.1 costs $10.00 per million input tokens and $50.00 per million output tokens; Kimi K2.6 costs $0.95 and $4.00. That makes Kimi K2.6 about 92% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 34 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 24 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 10 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.