LLMBenchmark.ai

Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K2.6

Updated October 21, 2026. 95 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Replace Claude Fable 5.1 Replace Kimi K2.6
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic
Coding
89.1
Overall
53.4
Output $/M
$50.00
93
Kimi K2.6Moonshot AI
Coding
44.2
Overall
27.0
Output $/M
$3.41
2
vs boards won of 95 shared

Decision reading

Pick Claude Fable 5.1 for coding: it scores 89.1 on the Vibe Coding Index against 44.2 for Kimi K2.6.

Pick Kimi K2.6 when output tokens cost 14.7x less, or when what matters is Vending-Bench 2 or SAGE (Vals AI), where it leads.

Model AClaude Fable 5.1Anthropic89.1/1002 independent benchmarksNo cost per solved taskModel BKimi K2.6Moonshot AI44.2/1001 independent benchmark$0.35 per solved task
Shared results
95
Claude Fable 5.1 only
29
Kimi K2.6 only
14
Like-for-like categories
8 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Claude Fable 5.1 89.1 from 2 benchmarks, Kimi K2.6 44.2 from 1 benchmark.
Widest category
Math, 33.8 points apart on average over 6 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
ProofBench: Claude Fable 5.1 100.0% against Kimi K2.6 16.0%, 84.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Claude Fable 5.1 $50.00 against Kimi K2.6 $3.41 per million output tokens, 14.7x apart.
Context window
Claude Fable 5.1 takes 1M tokens, Kimi K2.6 262K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryClaude Fable 5.1BarsKimi K2.6Ties
Coding150
Intelligence20
Agentic work111
Reasoning120
Math60
Knowledge100
Web design80
General291
All shared boards932
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index150
Coding benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.1 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Kimi K2.6Leader
LiveBench coding97.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
LMArena WebDev17431509Claude Fable 5.1
AA Coding Index81.661.8Claude Fable 5.1
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)90.5%86.8%Claude Fable 5.1
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured76.2%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)58.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)90.3%37.9%Claude Fable 5.1
Code migration (Vals AI)54.6%27.8%Claude Fable 5.1
ProgramBench (Vals AI)7.0%0.0%Claude Fable 5.1
IOI (Vals AI)90.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)85.0%53.6%Claude Fable 5.1
SWE-bench Multimodal (Vals AI)61.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
Vibe Code Bench 1-100 (Vals AI)28.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
SkillsBench (Vals AI)61.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)70.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
SciCode63.1%51.5%Claude Fable 5.1
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured43.9%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
FrontierCode50.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
FrontierSWE56.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
GSO-Bench88.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
WeirdML92.9%55.9%Claude Fable 5.1
MirrorCode73.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
ALE-Bench2143.21092.7Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: coding15321489Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: software and IT15301484Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena WebDev: React17921505Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena WebDev: HTML16841485Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena WebDev: from an image17221521Claude Fable 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Intelligence benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.1 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Kimi K2.6Leader
AA Intelligence Index53.427.0Claude Fable 5.1
Epoch Capabilities Index166.5150.9Claude Fable 5.1
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index111
Agentic work benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.1 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Kimi K2.6Leader
AA Agentic Index57.920.5Claude Fable 5.1
Design Arena: agents building web apps13181268Claude Fable 5.1
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps13261155Claude Fable 5.1
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps12671156Claude Fable 5.1
Design Arena: agents building Android appsNot measured1166Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot games13271120Claude Fable 5.1
Design Arena: agents building gamesNot measured1141Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Design Arena: HTML slidesNot measured1184Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slides13281128Claude Fable 5.1
Design Arena: spreadsheets13741276Claude Fable 5.1
LiveBench research82.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
LiveBench browser100.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
LiveBench long agentic80.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
SREBench (Vals AI)22.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)58.9%44.9%Claude Fable 5.1
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)49.2%12.4%Claude Fable 5.1
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)55.3%15.9%Claude Fable 5.1
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)76.7%57.9%Claude Fable 5.1
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)40.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
Time Horizon Index (Vals AI)63.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
CUA-bench (Vals AI)13.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
Robo-bench (Vals AI)5.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured95.9%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
APEX-Agents68.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
Remote Labor Index17.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
OSWorld 2.0Not measured4.6%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
SpireClimb2.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
Vending-Bench 2$5,422$6,205Kimi K2.6
LMArena Search1246Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index120
Reasoning benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.1 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Kimi K2.6Leader
GPQA Diamond93.4%89.1%Claude Fable 5.1
LiveBench reasoning91.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)47.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)90.6%86.3%Claude Fable 5.1
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)93.7%91.1%Claude Fable 5.1
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)59.1%37.5%Claude Fable 5.1
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured90.8%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
ARC-AGI97.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
ARC-AGI-290.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
Chess puzzles48.0%20.0%Claude Fable 5.1
Mystery game puzzles58.0%18.0%Claude Fable 5.1
EBR-bench57.1%2.4%Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: hard prompts15281470Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: expert15441491Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English15221471Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Vision: diagrams13431298Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Vision: homework13451310Claude Fable 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index60
Math benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.1 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Kimi K2.6Leader
OTIS Mock AIME100.0%96.1%Claude Fable 5.1
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 390.2%57.2%Claude Fable 5.1
FrontierMath, tier 487.8%25.6%Claude Fable 5.1
ProofBench100.0%16.0%Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: math15311474Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: mathematical work15411480Claude Fable 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index100
Knowledge benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.1 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Kimi K2.6Leader
MMLU Pro92.4%87.6%Claude Fable 5.1
LegalBench (Vals AI)88.5%84.7%Claude Fable 5.1
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured61.2%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured66.7%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)76.0%74.7%Claude Fable 5.1
MortgageTax (Vals AI)70.8%65.8%Claude Fable 5.1
MedCode (Vals AI)53.5%40.1%Claude Fable 5.1
SimpleQA Verified70.8%34.9%Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: science15321468Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare15311457Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: legal and government15141462Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: business and finance14931445Claude Fable 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index80
Web design benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.1 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Kimi K2.6Leader
Design Arena: websites13131269Claude Fable 5.1
Design Arena: UI components13381266Claude Fable 5.1
Design Arena: game dev13821251Claude Fable 5.1
Design Arena: data viz13441249Claude Fable 5.1
Design Arena: 3D13931268Claude Fable 5.1
Design Arena: all code categories13361272Claude Fable 5.1
Design Arena: SVG13011181Claude Fable 5.1
Design Arena: ASCII art13241164Claude Fable 5.1
LiveBench design83.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index291
General benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.1 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Kimi K2.6Leader
LiveBench data analysis80.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)74.9%56.6%Claude Fable 5.1
SAGE (Vals AI)48.5%50.2%Kimi K2.6
MedScribe (Vals AI)91.3%78.2%Claude Fable 5.1
Vals Multimodal IndexNot measured56.4%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
IFBenchNot measured76.0%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)85.3%81.0%Claude Fable 5.1
DTBench97.6%90.9%Claude Fable 5.1
LMCA65.5%37.3%Claude Fable 5.1
Furniture assembly70.0%21.7%Claude Fable 5.1
ExploitBenchNot measured18.4%Only Kimi K2.6 measured
LMArena Text15121455Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: instruction following15181451Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: creative writing15091434Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Vision13191282Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: English15061460Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: non-English15081446Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: Chinese15841520Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: German14991451Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: Japanese15621443Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: Korean15171427Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: French15231471Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: Spanish15201464Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: Russian15201446Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: Polish15251438Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: multi-turn14931453Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: longer queries15241468Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: writing and language15101439Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14971428Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Vision: English13131287Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Vision: Chinese13911346Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Vision: reading text13271291Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Vision: humor13181280Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Vision: creative writing13301273Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena DocumentNot measured1451Only Kimi K2.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.1 and Kimi K2.6
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Kimi K2.6Leader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Claude Fable 5.1$0.035Fits in one request
Kimi K2.6$0.0024Fits in one request

Kimi K2.6 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Claude Fable 5.1$0.650Fits in one request
Kimi K2.6$0.043Fits in one request

Kimi K2.6 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Claude Fable 5.1$2.50Fits in one request
Kimi K2.6$0.164Fits in one request

Kimi K2.6 costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Claude Fable 5.1 and Kimi K2.6
SpecificationAnthropic Claude Fable 5.1MoonshotAI Kimi K2.6
MakerAnthropicMoonshot AI
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 1, 2026April 20, 2026
Context window1M262K
Input $/Mtok$10.00$0.65
Output $/Mtok$50.00$3.41
Coding index89.144.2
Independent measurements behind it21
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.35
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Kimi K2.6 for coding?

Pick Claude Fable 5.1 for coding: it scores 89.1 on the Vibe Coding Index against 44.2 for Kimi K2.6. Pick Kimi K2.6 when output tokens cost 14.7x less, or when what matters is Vending-Bench 2 or SAGE (Vals AI), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or Kimi K2.6?

Claude Fable 5.1 costs $10.00 per million input tokens and $50.00 per million output tokens; Kimi K2.6 costs $0.65 and $3.41. Cost per solved task is known for Kimi K2.6 only.

Which has the bigger context window, Claude Fable 5.1 or Kimi K2.6?

Claude Fable 5.1, with 1M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks is the Claude Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K2.6 comparison based on?

95 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Claude Fable 5.1's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Kimi K2.6's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next