Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5 vs Kimi K2.5

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

83.68/100
Margin
24.0pts
← winning
Kimi K2.5
Moonshot AI
59.66/100
2 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #2 (Supported); Kimi K2.5 #54 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and Kimi K2.5 share 19 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 15 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 44 to Kimi K2.5.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
19
Claude Fable 5 only
15
Kimi K2.5 only
44
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Claude Fable 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Kimi K2.5 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 19 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 3 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 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 83.68 to 59.66. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Fable 5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 89.2 against 59.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 84.3% to 50.8%. Kimi K2.5 does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Claude Fable 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.60 input / $3.00 output per 1M tokens for Kimi K2.5. That is roughly 16.7x on output cost alone. Claude Fable 5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Kimi K2.5 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Claude Fable 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 256K for Kimi K2.5.

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 K2.5
CategoryClaude Fable 5ΔKimi K2.5
CodingClaude Fable 589.2Margin← 29.8Kimi K2.559.4
AgenticClaude Fable 584.6Margin← 29.6Kimi K2.555.0
MultimodalClaude Fable 557.9Margin→ 20.6Kimi K2.578.5
ReasoningClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapKimi K2.561.0
KnowledgeClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapKimi K2.556.9
MathClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapKimi K2.560.6
MultilingualClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapKimi K2.582.3
Inst. FollowingClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapKimi K2.593.9

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Fable 5B · Kimi K2.5

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 84.3%B 50.8%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 33.5
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Fable 5 scored 84.3%; Kimi K2.5 scored 50.8%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 80%B 50.7%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 29.3
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Fable 5 scored 80%; Kimi K2.5 scored 50.7%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 95%B 76.8%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 18.2
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Fable 5 scored 95%; Kimi K2.5 scored 76.8%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Fable 5Kimi K2.5Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Fable 5$10 input / $50 outputKimi K2.5$0.6 input / $3 outputKimi K2.5 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Fable 5Not availableKimi K2.545 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Fable 5Not availableKimi K2.52.38 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Fable 51M+Kimi K2.5256KClaude Fable 5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Fable 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Kimi K2.5Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 84.3%50.8%Claude Fable 5 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 85%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 17481009Claude Fable 5 leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 52.8%21.7%Claude Fable 5 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 98.5%95.9%Claude Fable 5 leads
GDPval-AASource 62.4%25.4%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA BriefcaseSource 1574—Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 48.6%—Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 51.1%—Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 93.6%—Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 26.8%—Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource 62.9%—Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source 84.6%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource —60.6%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —52.3%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —54.3%Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource —65.7%Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource —77.1%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —14.4%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —27.8%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —29.5%Not comparable
MCP-TasksSource —59.1%Not comparable
WideResearchSource —72.7%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —11.5%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —45.88%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —14.0%Not comparable
JobBenchSource —8.7%Not comparable
CodingClaude Fable 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Kimi K2.5Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 95%76.8%Claude Fable 5 leads
SWE-bench ProSource 80%50.7%Claude Fable 5 leads
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%46.8%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 60.2%49.0%Claude Fable 5 leads
SWE-bench Verified*Source —70.8%Not comparable
LiveCodeBench v6Source —85.0%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —73%Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource —58.5%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource —77.2%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —48.7%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Kimi K2.5Result
AA-LCRSource 70.0%65.3%Claude Fable 5 leads
CritPtSource 28.6%3.1%Claude Fable 5 leads
LongBench v2Source —61%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Kimi K2.5Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 59.9%35.4%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.6%87.9%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-HLESource 53.3%29.4%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 40.2%-8.1%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 61.4%34.3%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 54.9%64.6%Claude Fable 5 leads
GPQASource —87.6%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —87.6%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —69.2%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —87.1%Not comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source —87.1%Not comparable
HLESource —30.1%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Kimi K2.5Result
AIME 2025Source —96.1%Not comparable
AIME26Source —95.8%Not comparable
AIME25 (Arcee)Source —96.3%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2025Source —95.4%Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source —91.1%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —87.1%Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource —81.8%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source —27.900%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source —4.200%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Kimi K2.5Result
MMLU-ProXSource —82.3%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —56.0%Not comparable
MultimodalKimi K2.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Kimi K2.5Result
Blueprint-Bench 2Source 38.6%—Not comparable
OfficeQA ProSource 57.9%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13321279Claude Fable 5 leads
MMMU-ProSource —78.5%Not comparable
Video-MMESource —87.4%Not comparable
MMVUSource —80.4%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —86.6%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —75.4%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Kimi K2.5Result
AA-IFBenchSource 63.5%70.2%Kimi K2.5 leads
IFEvalSource —93.9%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Kimi K2.5?

Claude Fable 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 83.68 to 59.66. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 84.3% and 50.8%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5 or Kimi K2.5?

Claude Fable 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 59.4. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Kimi K2.5?

Claude Fable 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.6 versus 55. 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 K2.5?

Kimi K2.5 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.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

Claude Fable 5
API / mo$0
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Kimi K2.5
API / mo$2,700
Self-host / mo$5,221
Break-even132M/day
Model the full break-even

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.