Claude Fable 5.2 vs Kimi K2.7 Code
Claude Fable 5.2 leads Kimi K2.7 Code on coding, 87.8 to 53.4 on the Vibe Coding Index, and Kimi K2.7 Code costs 10.0x less per output token ($4.00 vs $40.00 per million). Updated November 14, 2026; 29 benchmarks have a result for both.
Claude Fable 5.2 or Kimi K2.7 Code: which to pick
Pick Claude Fable 5.2 for coding: it scores 87.8 on the Vibe Coding Index against 53.4 for Kimi K2.7 Code.
Pick Kimi K2.7 Code for output tokens 10.0x cheaper ($4.00 vs $40.00 per million).
- Shared results
- 29
- Claude Fable 5.2 only
- 39
- Kimi K2.7 Code only
- 26
- Like-for-like categories
- 8 of 9
Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.
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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
Claude Fable 5.2
Claude Fable 5.2 scores 87.8 against 53.4.
4 benchmarks behind each score
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only Claude Fable 5.2 has a AA Intelligence Index result, 64.6.
Directional only
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Kimi K2.7 Code has a AA Agentic Index result, 21.0.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
Claude Fable 5.2
Claude Fable 5.2 leads, 1351 against 1258.
Same board, both measured
General
Vals Index
No call
Only Claude Fable 5.2 has a Vals Index result, 71.3%.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Claude Fable 5.2
Claude Fable 5.2 takes 1M tokens against 262K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Kimi K2.7 Code
Claude Fable 5.2 $0.028, Kimi K2.7 Code $0.0029 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
No call
Only Kimi K2.7 Code has the number, $0.35.
Directional only
At a glance
- Coding index
- Claude Fable 5.2 87.8 from 4 benchmarks, Kimi K2.7 Code 53.4 from 4 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Knowledge, 57.5 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- FrontierMath, tier 4: Claude Fable 5.2 100.0% against Kimi K2.7 Code 12.2%, 87.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Claude Fable 5.2 $40.00 against Kimi K2.7 Code $4.00 per million output tokens, 10.0x apart.
- Context window
- Claude Fable 5.2 takes 1M tokens, Kimi K2.7 Code 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.
| Category | Claude Fable 5.2 | Bars | Kimi K2.7 Code | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 9 | 0 | ||
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Agentic work | 3 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 5 | 0 | ||
| Math | 3 | 0 | ||
| Knowledge | 1 | 0 | ||
| Web design | 5 | 0 | ||
| General | 2 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 29 | 0 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index90
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | Kimi K2.7 Code | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench coding | 79.2% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| LMArena WebDev | 1838 | 1474 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 60.8 | Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 82.0% | Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | Not measured | 78.2% | Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured |
| Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI) | 65.2% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 93.8% | 47.2% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | Not measured | 25.4% | Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured |
| ProgramBench (Vals AI) | 19.0% | 0.0% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | Not measured | 67.0% | Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured |
| SWE-bench Multimodal (Vals AI) | 62.3% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| SkillsBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 50.0% | Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured |
| SciCode | 67.7% | 47.8% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 44.7% | Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Artificial Analysis run) | 61.6% | 1.0% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| FrontierCode 2.0 | 49.1% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| FrontierCode | Not measured | 30.1% | Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured |
| FrontierSWE | 69.9% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| WeirdML | Not measured | 54.1% | Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured |
| ALE-Bench | 2509.8 | 886.2 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| LMArena WebDev: React | 1915 | 1475 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1738 | 1453 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| LMArena WebDev: from an image | Not measured | 1512 | Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured |
| GameBench 2 | 99.1 | 33.2 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| CursorBench 4.0 | 60.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | Kimi K2.7 Code | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 64.6 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 173.4 | 151.2 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | Kimi K2.7 Code | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 21.0 | Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured |
| Design Arena: agents building web apps | Not measured | 1153 | Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured |
| Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps | 1402 | 1150 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Design Arena: agents building mobile apps | 1325 | 1134 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Design Arena: agents building Android apps | Not measured | 1130 | Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Godot games | Not measured | 1125 | Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured |
| Design Arena: agents building games | Not measured | 1074 | Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured |
| Design Arena: HTML slides | Not measured | 1097 | Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured |
| Design Arena: PowerPoint slides | Not measured | 1119 | Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured |
| Design Arena: spreadsheets | 1434 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| LiveBench research | 94.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| LiveBench browser | 86.9% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| LiveBench long agentic | 82.9% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | 32.1% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | 46.1% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI) | 5.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| BioMysteryBench (Vals AI) | 83.7% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI) | 55.7% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Vals Science Index | 63.7% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | Not measured | 90.1% | Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured |
| APEX-Agents | 80.1% | 37.6% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Remote Labor Index | 41.3% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| SpireClimb | 15.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Vending-Bench 2 | Not measured | $5,083 | Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured |
| Toolathlon-Verified | Not measured | 58.0% | Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | Kimi K2.7 Code | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench reasoning | 88.8% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| MysteryMechanism (Vals AI) | 51.8% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 89.6% | Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 74.3% | 35.0% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| HLE-Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 80.2% | 14.8% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| CritPt v2, hard subset (Artificial Analysis run) | 76.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 93.9% | 87.9% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| ARC-AGI | 98.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 93.8% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| SimpleBench | 94.9% | 57.9% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Chess puzzles | 79.0% | 14.0% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Mystery game puzzles | 90.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| EBR-bench | 90.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Scale run) | 72.4% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| GoBench | 2566 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | Kimi K2.7 Code | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | 99.7% | 95.6% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 95.1% | 54.0% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| FrontierMath, tier 4 | 100.0% | 12.2% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| ProofBench | 100.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| MathArena | 82.8% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | Kimi K2.7 Code | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-Omniscience | 66.8 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| SimpleQA Verified | 94.0% | 36.5% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| PRBench Finance | 47.1% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| PRBench Legal | 49.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here | |||
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | Kimi K2.7 Code | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 1351 | 1258 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Design Arena: UI components | 1371 | 1251 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Design Arena: game dev | 1396 | 1210 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Design Arena: data viz | Not measured | 1220 | Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | 1517 | 1219 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 1373 | 1243 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Design Arena: SVG | Not measured | 1164 | Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured |
| Design Arena: ASCII art | Not measured | 1185 | Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured |
| LiveBench design | 85.1% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | Kimi K2.7 Code | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vals Index | 71.3% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| LiveBench data analysis | 81.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| IFBench | Not measured | 63.1% | Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 83.3% | 79.3% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| GDPval-AA | 1831 | 1046 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| DTBench | 99.2% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| LMCA | 70.6% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Surface Evolver Bench | Not measured | 48.8% | Only Kimi K2.7 Code measured |
| Furniture assembly | 90.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | Kimi K2.7 Code | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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
Kimi K2.7 Code costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Kimi K2.7 Code costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Kimi K2.7 Code 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.
| Specification | Anthropic Claude Fable 5.2 | MoonshotAI Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Anthropic | Moonshot AI |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | November 9, 2026 | June 12, 2026 |
| Context window | 1M | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $8.00 | $0.95 |
| Output $/Mtok | $40.00 | $4.00 |
| Coding index | 87.8 | 53.4 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 4 | 4 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | $0.35 |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Claude Fable 5.2 better than Kimi K2.7 Code for coding?
Pick Claude Fable 5.2 for coding: it scores 87.8 on the Vibe Coding Index against 53.4 for Kimi K2.7 Code. Pick Kimi K2.7 Code for output tokens 10.0x cheaper ($4.00 vs $40.00 per million).
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.2 or Kimi K2.7 Code?
Claude Fable 5.2 costs $8.00 per million input tokens and $40.00 per million output tokens; Kimi K2.7 Code costs $0.95 and $4.00. Cost per solved task is known for Kimi K2.7 Code only.
Which has the bigger context window, Claude Fable 5.2 or Kimi K2.7 Code?
Claude Fable 5.2, with 1M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks is the Claude Fable 5.2 vs Kimi K2.7 Code comparison based on?
29 benchmarks have a result for both models as of November 14, 2026. Claude Fable 5.2's coding index rests on 4 independent benchmarks and Kimi K2.7 Code's on 4. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.