Its hard to compare that one to my regular sub of anthropic (107€), but everyone always says how much cheaper it is so i thought it was worth a try.
1.5 days later ive went through more then 50% of my weekly usage and decided to renew the regular anthropic sub too.
The API Pricing is definitely cheaper, but anthropics subscription budget seems to equalize that advantage right now. also kimi code feels like claude code from ... september 2025
also - considering how they announced they'd temporarily close subscriptions to make sure they can service customers... i was slightly surprised that there was no issue subscribing, less then 1 day after that announcement. Makes you think if that was just a marketing stunt
Let's judge the speed of the model when its weights are released and every inference provider on the planet offers it, so demand can spread out a bit.
It's the same topic with token budget comparisons and subscription pricing - don't people understand that this doesn't really matter for open weights models? The pricing is going to be determined by the inference providers, and until they had a chance to evaluate the model on their infra and set token prices accordingly, one doesn't really have anything tangible to compare with other open models nor with closed ones.
On the other hand I expect K3 future refinements to be massive and more efficient.
Also this arm of the discussion was about speed, not price.
Yoh have posts in this thread suggesting that Fable is 5x more expensive than Kimi K3.
* Kimi K3: 9532k input (9172k cached), 114k output - cost $5.5
* Qwen 3.8 Max: 18020k input (17836k cached), 114k output - cost $6.3
* Fable: ~14m input (all cached??), 196k output - cost $30
Correction on my earlier post, Kimi was through Pi, not Kimi Code. For Qwen I used Qwen Code and for Fable I used Claude Code.
Not sure wtf is going on with the Fable stats (a lot tokens, virtuall all of them were cached - I guess heavy system prompt?) but both claude code stats and ccusage tool output match.
To objectively test all models the harness would need to be the same and ideally independent. Failing that, all three models should be tested in all three harnesses and the output verified on a model x harness level and on an overall aggregated model x all harnesses level.
Yes they do according to databricks -> https://www.databricks.com/blog/benchmarking-coding-agents-d...
That's why I find comparing models on benchmarks only gives the tendency. We should be comparing model x harness to have accurate metrics.
Testing each lab’s model in its own harness just tells us how well the lab has performed. For the model’s performance we need a control and the only way to get the control is to either test all models in all harnesses or all models in the same harness
* Kimi K3: (...) cost $6.3
* Fable: (...) cost $30
It's pretty clear that Kimi K3 beats Fable by a long margin.
This wasn't just being slow - it didn't make forward progress.
For simpler stuff even 2.7 does just fine, though.
The 5.5/5.6 series has performed quite well however. My guess is that my use cases stop aligning to swebench pro around 50% accuracy, and more closely align with DeepSWE.
What do you mean by that ? If the model is higher than 50% on swebench pro then it tends to drift from what you like it to do, like DeepSWE benchmarks ?
Kimi was half the cost and produced a near identical output.
On a fairly simple coding task Kimi was 2x the cost and 7x as slow (and gpt-5.6-sol was even cheaper).
This totally depends on the model. Deepseek V4 is very fast and efficient.
But yes, it’s cheap.
People talk about frontier as if it's the only innovation worth pursuing. Deepseek V4 is far from fontier, but it's architecture is super innovative and efficient and what it achieves at that size (especially V4 Flash) is incredible.
Those are all frontier-competitive models.
However they do seem very close to SOTA : I’d say roughly equal to previous gen (Opus 4.8, GPT 5.5). It’s yet another silly benchmark, but compare them here: https://senko.net/vibecode-bench/
I also had K3, Qwen3.8 and Fable (using Kimi Code, Qwen Code and Claude Code harnesses respectively, and the official APIs) create a simple but far from trivial web app (zero shot, from a detailed spec). In user testing all three results looked/behaved more or less the same. I had Sol (via codex) do code reviews on all three and it concluded all three were solid, with some room for improvement. Fable was slightly ahead of the pack.
In my own work I still prefer Opus 4.8 (until Antrophic come to their senses and allow 100% Fable usage on Max plans) and Sol, but if I had to find an alternative, I could live with both K3 and Qwen3.8 just fine.