Claude Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K2.6
Claude Fable 5.1 
Kimi K2.6 Verdict
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) leads on quality: 70.3 vs 60.7.
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, composite, human preference, knowledge, maths, reasoning.
- Kimi K2.6 is stronger in instruction following, long context, multimodal.
- Kimi K2.6 is 12× cheaper ($1.71 vs $20.00 per 1M blended).
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 70.3 | 60.7 |
| Agents & tools score | 67.4 | 45.1 |
| Coding score | 78.4 | 60.4 |
| Composite score | 76.6 | 68.6 |
| Human preference score | 71.3 | 60.8 |
| Knowledge score | 75.9 | 58.6 |
| Maths score | 77.0 | 53.8 |
| Reasoning score | 71.9 | 66.0 |
| Instruction following score | – | 73.7 |
| Long context score | – | 67.1 |
| Multimodal score | – | 63.7 |
| Blended price $/M | $20.00 | $1.71 |
| Output speed | 40 tok/s | 44 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 299.8 s | 103.2 s |
| Context window | 1M | 262k |
| GPQA Diamond | – | 90.8% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | 90.2% | 57.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | 25.6% |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 100.0% | 96.1% |
| SWE-bench Verified (Epoch) | – | 76.7% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | 34.9% |
| Terminal-Bench | 57.9% | – |
| OSWorld-Verified 2.0 | – | 4.6% |
| SciCode | 62.0% | 53.5% |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | 55.9% |
| APEX-Agents | – | 18.9% |
| ProofBench | 100.0% | 16.0% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | – | 151.0 |
| LMArena Text | 1504 | 1461 |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1522 | 1485 |
| LMArena Coding | 1517 | 1514 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1764 | 1509 |
| LMArena Vision | – | 1281 |
| LMArena Agent | 14.5 | – |
| LiveBench | 83.4% | – |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 91.7% | – |
| LiveBench Coding | 86.4% | – |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | 66.1% | – |
| LiveBench Mathematics | 97.0% | – |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 80.3% | – |
| LiveBench Language | 89.5% | – |
| AA Intelligence Index | – | 31.3 |
| IFBench | – | 76.0% |
| AA-LCR | – | 81.0% |
| MMMU-Pro | – | 79.4% |
| AA-Omniscience | – | 5.3 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | – | 43.9% |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | – | 91.1% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | – | 37.5% |
| SciCode (AA) | – | 51.5% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | – | 95.9% |
| LiveCodeBench | – | 86.8% |
| MMLU-Pro | – | 87.6% |
| LegalBench | – | 84.7% |
| CorpFin | – | 66.7% |
| TaxEval | – | 74.7% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | – | 53.6% |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | – | 76.2% |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | – | 89.1% |
| Vals Index | – | 43.5 |
| HiL-Bench | – | 18.7% |
| EQ-Bench 4 | – | 1202 |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90.0% | – |
Data as of 2026-09-10. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K2.6: questions
- Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Kimi K2.6?
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) leads on quality: 70.3 vs 60.7. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Fable 5.1 (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-09-10, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Kimi K2.6 for coding?
- Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in coding (78 vs 60 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Kimi K2.6 for agentic tasks?
- Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in agentic tasks (67 vs 45 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or Kimi K2.6?
- Kimi K2.6 is cheaper: $1.71 against $20.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, Claude Fable 5.1 or Kimi K2.6?
- Kimi K2.6 streams faster: 44 against 40 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M against 262k tokens.