Claude Fable 5 vs Kimi K3 256K
Claude Fable 5 was superseded by Claude Fable 5.1. The grades below are the last ones measured, so read them as history rather than as this week's board. See the current roster.
Claude Fable 5 leads overall, C to D+. Kimi K3 256K is about 1.2x cheaper per task. By suite, real-world issues is even at C- and Claude Fable 5 takes spec planning (C to C-). Take Kimi K3 256K anyway when you want the side that is cheaper per task.Measured
Each agent graded on the same private suites, running headless through its own tools. Advantages are oriented so a win is a win, whichever way the metric runs.
Verdict: Kimi K3 256K vs Claude Fable 5
Claude Fable 5 leads overall, C to D+. By suite: real-world issues is even at C- (60% vs 60% capability); Claude Fable 5 takes spec planning, C to C- (63% vs 56% capability); Claude Fable 5 takes vibe coding, C+ to F (74% vs 34% capability). Claude Fable 5 used 7% of Claude Max 20x's weekly limit per pass, $0.169 per task at the listed price; at the ~$100 tier the board defaults to that is an estimated ~14% of Claude Max 5x's weekly limit (est, about $0.169 per task). Kimi K3 256K used 31% of Kimi Allegretto's weekly limit per pass, $0.146 per task at the listed price. Per task, Kimi K3 256K is about 1.2x cheaper ($0.146 vs $0.169). Claude Fable 5 is faster on real-world issues: a median task takes 2m 37s against 3m 31s. Both finished every task on it. Reasons to pick Kimi K3 256K anyway: it is cheaper per task ($0.146 vs $0.169).
Changed since the previous graded week: Claude Fable 5: real-world issues C+ to C-, vibe coding C to C+; Kimi K3 256K: real-world issues usage 23% to 21% of the weekly limit, spec planning D+ to C-, spec planning usage 11% to 10% of the weekly limit, vibe coding usage 3% to 2.6% of the weekly limit.
| Dimension | Claude Fable 5 | Kimi K3 256K | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 60% | 60% | Even |
| Median task time | 2m 37s | 3m 31s | 55s faster (Claude Fable 5 leads) |
| Approx. task cost | $0.153 / task | $0.126 / task | $0.028 / task lower (Kimi K3 256K leads) |
Claude Fable 5: 33.0% of Claude Max 20x (33.0% / 5h, 5.0% / 1w) per run. Its weekly limit holds about 7 of the week's 33.6 5h windows. Kimi K3 256K: 104.0% of Kimi Allegretto (104.0% / 5h, 21.0% / 1w) per run. Its weekly limit holds about 5 of the week's 33.6 5h windows. Each figure is a share of that agent's own plan, so there is no delta to draw.
Work per window: Claude Fable 5 443 vs Kimi K3 256K 140 suite runs per month (Claude Fable 5 leads); per plan-dollar: 2.21 vs 3.60 (Kimi K3 256K leads). Work figures compare outputs, so unlike quota shares they are comparable across plans.
| Dimension | Claude Fable 5 | Kimi K3 256K | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 63% | 56% | +7% (Claude Fable 5 leads) |
| Median task time | 5m 32s | 5m 26s | 6s faster (Kimi K3 256K leads) |
| Approx. task cost | $0.230 / task | $0.224 / task | $0.006 / task lower (Kimi K3 256K leads) |
Claude Fable 5: 10.0% of Claude Max 20x (10.0% / 5h, 2.0% / 1w) per run. Its weekly limit holds about 7 of the week's 33.6 5h windows. Kimi K3 256K: 52.0% of Kimi Allegretto (52.0% / 5h, 10.0% / 1w) per run. Its weekly limit holds about 5 of the week's 33.6 5h windows. Each figure is a share of that agent's own plan, so there is no delta to draw.
Work per window: Claude Fable 5 1461 vs Kimi K3 256K 281 suite runs per month (Claude Fable 5 leads); per plan-dollar: 7.30 vs 7.20 (Claude Fable 5 leads). Work figures compare outputs, so unlike quota shares they are comparable across plans.
| Dimension | Claude Fable 5 | Kimi K3 256K | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 74% | 34% | +40% (Claude Fable 5 leads) |
| Median task time | 5m 28s | 7m 33s | 2m 4s faster (Claude Fable 5 leads) |
| Approx. task cost | $0.184 / task | $0.233 / task | $0.049 / task lower (Claude Fable 5 leads) |
Claude Fable 5: 2.8% of Claude Max 20x (2.8% / 5h, 0.4% / 1w) per good solve. Its weekly limit holds about 7 of the week's 33.6 5h windows. Kimi K3 256K: 13.2% of Kimi Allegretto (13.2% / 5h, 2.6% / 1w) per good solve. Its weekly limit holds about 5 of the week's 33.6 5h windows. Each figure is a share of that agent's own plan, so there is no delta to draw.
Work per window: Claude Fable 5 5218 vs Kimi K3 256K 1107 good solves per month (Claude Fable 5 leads); per plan-dollar: 26.09 vs 28.38 (Kimi K3 256K leads). Work figures compare outputs, so unlike quota shares they are comparable across plans.
Grades and deltas are comparable only within a suite version. See methodology.
Frequently asked questions
Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5 or Kimi K3 256K?
They are even on our ladder: both clear tier 4 of 5 at 60% capability on real-world@v3, our private suite of real-world coding problems. Latest measurement 2026-08-30.
Which is cheaper per task, Claude Fable 5 or Kimi K3 256K?
Claude Fable 5 used 7% of Claude Max 20x's weekly limit per pass, $0.169 per task at the listed price; at the ~$100 tier the board defaults to that is an estimated ~14% of Claude Max 5x's weekly limit (est, about $0.169 per task). Kimi K3 256K used 31% of Kimi Allegretto's weekly limit per pass, $0.146 per task at the listed price. Per task, Kimi K3 256K is about 1.2x cheaper ($0.146 vs $0.169).
Which gives more coding work per dollar, Claude Fable 5 or Kimi K3 256K?
Kimi K3 256K delivers more benchmark work per subscription dollar: 3.60 suite runs per plan-dollar versus 2.21 for Claude Fable 5 (at $39/month priced 2026-07-20, and $200/month priced 2026-08-05). Work figures compare outputs, so unlike raw quota shares they are comparable across plans.
What do Claude Fable 5 and Kimi K3 256K cost a month?
Claude Fable 5 runs on Claude Max 20x at $200/month (public price as of 2026-08-05). Kimi K3 256K runs on Kimi Allegretto at $39/month (public price as of 2026-07-20).