by datastudy.nl

Head-to-head comparisons of frontier AI models, rebuilt daily from public benchmark data

Head to head

Claude Fable 5 vs Kimi K3

How Claude Fable 5 and Kimi K3 stack up across benchmarks, pricing, speed, and the workloads that matter.

Claude Fable 5

Anthropic · Proprietary

Blended price$14.44per 1M tokens
Context1Mtokens
Speed1.2tok/s
Benchmarks18results
VS

Kimi K3

Moonshot AI · Open weights

Blended price$4.33per 1M tokens
Context1.05Mtokens
Speed8.1tok/s
Benchmarks31results

Claude Fable 5 costs $14.44 per million blended tokens, about 3.33x the price of Kimi K3. On reasoning, Kimi K3 leads by about 20 points in our normalized benchmark average.

The table below breaks down every workload axis where both models have published results. Each score is a normalized 0 to 1 average across the benchmarks tagged with that category. A gap of a few points is noise; a gap of ten or more is a real difference in capability. Where one model has not reported a result, the cell shows n/a and the missing benchmark does not drag its average down.

Benchmark scores by workload

WorkloadClaude Fable 5Kimi K3Edge
Reasoning 59% 79% +20.4 pts
Coding 75% 67% +7.9 pts
Agents & tool use 55% 63% +7.8 pts
Math 71% 77% +5.5 pts
Vision & multimodal 55% 80% +24.7 pts
Writing n/a 53% n/a
Knowledge & factuality 64% 80% +16.1 pts

The headline benchmarks below are the most widely cited individual tests. GPQA Diamond measures graduate-level reasoning in physics, chemistry, and biology. SWE-Bench Verified tests whether a model can fix real GitHub issues. MMMU-Pro covers college-level multimodal understanding across six disciplines. AIME and FrontierMath push competitive and research math. BrowseComp measures web research ability.

Headline benchmarks

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Kimi K3
GPQA n/a 94%
SWE-Bench Verified 95% n/a
MMMU-Pro n/a 82%
BrowseComp n/a 91%

Benchmarks tell you what a model can do in a controlled setting. They do not tell you whether it will work on your specific task, with your specific data, at your specific scale. The recommendations below map each common workload to whichever of these two models scores higher on the relevant axis. Use them as a starting point, not a final answer.

Which should you choose?

Hard reasoning

Multi-step analysis, research, and problems that need sustained thought.

Kimi K3

Coding & software

Writing, reviewing, and debugging code across a real codebase.

Claude Fable 5

Agents & tool use

Long-running agents that call tools, browse, and act on their own.

Kimi K3

Math & science

Formal math, competitive problems, and quantitative science.

Kimi K3

Vision & documents

Reading images, screenshots, charts, and dense documents.

Kimi K3

Writing & drafting

Copy, emails, and long-form drafting where tone matters.

Kimi K3

High-volume & cost-sensitive

Cheap, repetitive calls where the blended token price dominates.

Kimi K3

Low latency & interactive

Chat, autocomplete, and real-time experiences that need snappy responses.

Kimi K3

Scores are normalized from public benchmarks published by llm-stats.com and averaged per workload. Pricing is the blended input/output cost per million tokens at an 8:1 mix. Refreshes daily. How this works.