Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 45.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 76.7 to 32.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 47% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 20% for Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo.
- Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Moonshot AI |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 45.8 |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2025-11-06 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | — |
| Results tracked | 52 | 21 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 74.7 (#1), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 38.4 (#178)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | 1322 |
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | 1454 |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| SciCode | 63.1% | — |
| GSO | 88.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | — |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 68.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 17.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 29.6% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,422 | — |
Reasoning Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 32.5 (#75)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | 20% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1428 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.1% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
| DTBench | 97.6% | — |
| LMCA | 65.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | — |
Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 47.4 (#68)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 83.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1525 | 1429 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 50.9 (#69)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | 1439 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 84.2% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1318 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 41.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 70% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1513 | — |
Multilingual Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 51.4 (#109)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1398 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1586 | 1456 |
| LMArena French | 1525 | 1425 |
| LMArena German | 1500 | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1543 | 1357 |
| LMArena Korean | 1534 | 1330 |
| LMArena Russian | 1521 | 1391 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1516 | 1406 |
Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 74.0 (#109)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1403 |
Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 43.2 (#102)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | 1415 |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 60.0 (#104)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1510 | 1415 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | 1374 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | 1414 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo?
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 45.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 38.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo has 21.