Claude Fable 5.2 (High, Default Fallback) vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5.2 (High, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or Kimi K3.1 Pro by Kimi? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-11-10.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Fable 5.2 (High, Default Fallbac… scores 15.3 points higher (61.8 vs 46.5) but costs 2.3× as much to run the benchmark ($7106 vs $3153; both flagship class). Pick Claude Fable 5.2 (High, Default Fallbac… when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Kimi K3.1 Pro.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.2 (High, Default Fallback) | Kimi K3.1 Pro | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 61.8 | 46.5 | −24.8% Kimi K3.1 Pro is 24.8% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $7,105.77 | $3,152.80 | −55.6% Kimi K3.1 Pro is 55.6% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 36.05s | 87.10s | +141.6% Kimi K3.1 Pro is 141.6% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $8.00 / $40.0 | $2.00 / $10.0 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Claude Fable 5.2 (High, Default Fallback): 24.8% less intelligence, 55.6% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 141.6% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Fable 5.2 (High, Default Fallback) is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
- Kimi K3.1 Pro is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 54.60 for $1124.
Claude Fable 5.2 (High, Default Fallback)Kimi K3.1 ProToday's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-2-high/kimi-k3-1-pro · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-2-high/kimi-k3-1-pro?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill