AI Trend Notifier
EN

$ diff claude-fable-5-1 kimi-k3

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K3

Values come from Claude Fable 5.1 and Kimi K3, where each is cited to its source. This page states no benchmark result and ranks neither model — it puts two published specifications next to each other. Where a lab has not published a figure, the row says so rather than guessing.

What actually differs

Context window
Identical — both accept 1M tokens, so context length is not a reason to pick either.
Input price
Kimi K3 at $3/M against $10/M — 3.3× cheaper to feed. Standard rates: one of these labs also quotes a lower cached-input tier, which applies only when a prefix is reused — see the full spec below.
Output price
Kimi K3 at $15/M against $50/M — 3.3× cheaper to generate. Output dominates the bill on most agentic workloads, where the model writes far more than it reads.
Weights
Kimi K3 publishes weights (Modified MIT (commercial use permitted; weights publicly downloadable)); Claude Fable 5.1 is API-only. That decides self-hosting, air-gapped deployment and fine-tuning before any capability question does.
Recency
Claude Fable 5.1 shipped 47 days after Kimi K3 (2026-09-01 vs 2026-07-16).

Full spec

AttributeClaude Fable 5.1Kimi K3
DeveloperAnthropicMoonshot AI
Released2026-09-012026-07-16
Context window1M tokens1M tokens
Pricing$10/M input · $50/M output · cache reads $0.25/M$0.30/M cache-hit input · $3.00/M cache-miss input · $15.00/M output
Licenseproprietary (API-only; no weight release)Modified MIT (commercial use permitted; weights publicly downloadable)
AvailabilityClaude API as `claude-fable-5-1`; plan-tier access is disputed — see `## Conflicting Reports`Kimi Code, Kimi app, Kimi API; weights on Hugging Face (`moonshot-ai/kimi-k3`, released 2026-07-27)

How these pages are produced

← all comparisons