Claude Fable 5.2 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5.2 (Xhigh, 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 (Xhigh, Default Fallba… scores 15.7 points higher (62.2 vs 46.5) but costs 3.7× as much to run the benchmark ($11742 vs $3153; both flagship class). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Fable 5.2 (Xhigh, Default Fallba… when you need intelligence above 46.5, and Kimi K3.1 Pro when 46.5 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.2 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) | Kimi K3.1 Pro | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 62.2 | 46.5 | −25.2% Kimi K3.1 Pro is 25.2% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $11,741.62 | $3,152.80 | −73.1% Kimi K3.1 Pro is 73.1% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 102.03s | 87.10s | −14.6% Kimi K3.1 Pro is 14.6% faster |
| 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 (Xhigh, Default Fallback): 25.2% less intelligence, 73.1% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 14.6% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Fable 5.2 (Xhigh, 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 (Xhigh, 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-xhigh/kimi-k3-1-pro · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-2-xhigh/kimi-k3-1-pro?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill