Kimi K3 vs Claude Fable 5
Too close to call on our weighted score (Kimi K3 65, Claude Fable 5 65). The right pick depends on what you value most.
Moonshot AIKimi K3
65/100- ECI157.6
- Price$3.00 / $15.00
- Context1.05M
AnthropicClaude Fable 5
65/100- ECI162.2
- Price$10.00 / $50.00
- Context1M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Kimi K3 65/100, Claude Fable 5 65/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Claude Fable 5 for raw capability, Kimi K3 on price and Kimi K3 for long inputs. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityClaude Fable 5Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Fable 5 162.2 · Kimi K3 157.6
- Lowest priceKimi K3Kimi K3 $6.00 · Claude Fable 5 $20.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextKimi K3Kimi K3 1,048,576 · Claude Fable 5 1,000,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsKimi K3: Text, Images, Video · Claude Fable 5: Text, Images, PDFs
- Self-hostingKimi K3Publishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Kimi K3 | Claude Fable 5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 88 | 94 |
| Price | 25% | 13 | 0 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 80 | 80 |
| Context window | 10% | 61 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 65/100 | 65/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Kimi K3Moonshot AI | Claude Fable 5Anthropic |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 157.6 | 162.2 (best) |
| ECI rank | #13 of 148 | #7 of 148 (best) |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 93.1% (best) | 85.9% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | 72.2% | 87.0% (best) |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 97.2% | 100% (best) |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | 50.6% | 70.7% (best) |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $3.00 (best) | $10.00 |
| Output | $15.00 (best) | $50.00 |
| Cached input | $0.30 (best) | $1.00 |
| Blended (3:1) | $6.00 (best) | $20.00 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Moonshot AI API | Official Anthropic API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 1,000,000 tokens |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 128,000 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · high · max | Yeslow · medium · high · xhigh · max |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | kimi-k3 | claude-fable-5 |
| API providers | 68 (best) | 38 |
| Released | Jul 16, 2026 | Jun 9, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Jan 31, 2026 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Kimi K3$60.00
- Claude Fable 5$200.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Kimi K3 or Claude Fable 5?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Kimi K3 65/100, Claude Fable 5 65/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Claude Fable 5 for raw capability, Kimi K3 on price and Kimi K3 for long inputs. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, Kimi K3 or Claude Fable 5?
Kimi K3 is cheaper at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per million tokens (official Moonshot AI API price). Claude Fable 5 costs $10.00 input / $50.00 output per million tokens (official Anthropic API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $6.00 per million tokens for Kimi K3 versus $20.00 for Claude Fable 5 (3.3× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Claude Fable 5 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Fable 5 162.2 (#7 of 148) and Kimi K3 157.6 (#13 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (159.6–166.1 vs 154.9–160.4), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Kimi K3 93.1%, Claude Fable 5 85.9%; FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 — Claude Fable 5 87.0%, Kimi K3 72.2%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Claude Fable 5 100%, Kimi K3 97.2%; SimpleQA Verified — Claude Fable 5 70.7%, Kimi K3 50.6%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Kimi K3 and Claude Fable 5 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Claude Fable 5 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Kimi K3 has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Claude Fable 5. Maximum output per response: Kimi K3 up to 131,072, Claude Fable 5 up to 128,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Kimi K3 accepts text, images and video; Claude Fable 5 accepts text, images and PDFs. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Kimi K3 publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Claude Fable 5 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Kimi K3 is the newest, released Jul 16, 2026. Claude Fable 5 came out Jun 9, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Fable 5 Jan 31, 2026.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
