Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5 vs Kimi K3

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 22 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

83.68/100
Margin
2.7pts
← winning
Kimi K3
Moonshot AI
80.96/100
0 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #2 (Supported); Kimi K3 #4 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and Kimi K3 share 22 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 12 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 35 to Kimi K3.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
22
Claude Fable 5 only
12
Kimi K3 only
35
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Claude Fable 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Kimi K3 only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 22 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Claude Fable 5 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 83.68 versus 80.96. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Claude Fable 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens for Kimi K3. That is roughly 3.3x on output cost alone. Kimi K3 gives you the larger context window at 1.05M, compared with 1M+ for Claude Fable 5.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude Fable 5 and Kimi K3
CategoryClaude Fable 5ΔKimi K3
MultimodalClaude Fable 557.9Margin→ 20.6Kimi K378.5
AgenticClaude Fable 584.6Margin→ 4.9Kimi K389.5
CodingClaude Fable 589.2MarginNo overlapKimi K3Not measured
KnowledgeClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapKimi K361.0

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Fable 5B · Kimi K3

  1. OfficeQA Pro

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 57.9%B 63.3%
    Winner: Kimi K3Δ 5.4
    OfficeQA Pro: Claude Fable 5 scored 57.9%; Kimi K3 scored 63.3%. Kimi K3 wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 84.3%B 88.3%
    Winner: Kimi K3Δ 4
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Fable 5 scored 84.3%; Kimi K3 scored 88.3%. Kimi K3 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Fable 5Kimi K3Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Fable 5$10 input / $50 outputKimi K3$3 input / $15 outputKimi K3 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Fable 5Not availableKimi K3Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Fable 5Not availableKimi K3Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Fable 51M+Kimi K31.05MKimi K3 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticKimi K3 wins
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Kimi K3Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 84.3%88.3%Kimi K3 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 85%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 17481679Claude Fable 5 leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 52.8%50.1%Claude Fable 5 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 98.5%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 62.4%59.0%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA BriefcaseSource 15741543Claude Fable 5 leads
AA AutomationBenchSource 48.6%52.7%Kimi K3 leads
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 51.1%45.3%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA Harvey LABSource 93.6%94.6%Kimi K3 leads
AA Tau3 BankingSource 26.8%33.4%Kimi K3 leads
terminalBenchHardSource 62.9%—Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source 84.6%85%Kimi K3 leads
BrowseCompSource —91.2%Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource —95.0%Not comparable
Toolathlon-VerifiedSource —73.2%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —84.2%Not comparable
AutomationBenchSource —30.8%Not comparable
JobBenchSource —52.9%Not comparable
APEX-AgentsSource —37.6%Not comparable
SpreadsheetBench 2Source —34.8%Not comparable
DECK-BenchSource —73.5%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —41.3%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —47.7%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Kimi K3Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 95%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 80%—Not comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 53.5%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 84.3%—Not comparable
cursorBench31Source 70.6%—Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 70.5%—Not comparable
VulcanBench v3Source 87.0%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 76.5%76.2%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 60.2%58.7%Claude Fable 5 leads
deepSweSource —67.5%Not comparable
FrontierSWESource —81.2%Not comparable
ProgramBenchSource —77.8%Not comparable
Kimi Code Bench v2Source —72.9%Not comparable
sweMarathonSource —42%Not comparable
PostTrain BenchSource —36.6%Not comparable
MLS-Bench LiteSource —48.3%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Kimi K3Result
AA-LCRSource 70.0%74.7%Kimi K3 leads
CritPtSource 28.6%23.4%Claude Fable 5 leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Kimi K3Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 59.9%57.1%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.6%93.5%Kimi K3 leads
AA-HLESource 53.3%44.3%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 40.2%18.4%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 61.4%46.0%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 54.9%50.9%Kimi K3 leads
GPQASource —93.5%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —93.5%Not comparable
HLESource —56%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource —43.5%Not comparable
MultimodalKimi K3 wins
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Kimi K3Result
Blueprint-Bench 2Source 38.6%—Not comparable
OfficeQA ProSource 57.9%63.3%Kimi K3 leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13321386Kimi K3 leads
MMMU-ProSource —81.6%Not comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource —83.4%Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource —84.8%Not comparable
CharXivSource —91.3%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —94.3%Not comparable
MathVision w/ PythonSource —97.8%Not comparable
BabyVision w/ PythonSource —85.7%Not comparable
ZeroBenchSource —23.0%Not comparable
ZeroBench w/ PythonSource —41.0%Not comparable
WorldVQA ForceAnswerSource —51.0%Not comparable
OmniDocBenchSource —91.1%Not comparable
PerceptionBenchSource —58.5%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —80.5%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Kimi K3Result
AA-IFBenchSource 63.5%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Kimi K3?

Claude Fable 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 83.68 to 80.96. The biggest single separator in this matchup is OfficeQA Pro, where the scores are 57.9% and 63.3%.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Kimi K3?

Kimi K3 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 89.5 versus 84.6. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Kimi K3?

Kimi K3 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.5 versus 57.9. Inside this category, Design Arena Website is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.