Kimi K2.7 Code vs Claude Fable 5: Landing pages that cost 94% less

40+ Models Chosen for Production...40+ Models Chosen for Production...40+ Models Chosen for Production...

We ran 12 landing pages through Kimi K2.7 Code and Claude Fable 5. Kimi cost 94% less and scored within a few points on nearly every page. Open-source models aren't just cheaper, they're genuinely competitive on quality. And the gap is closing faster than people realize.
‍

We ran an experiment where we had Kimi K2.7 Code and Claude Fable 5 each produce 12 landing pages for a side‑by‑side comparison. Overall, Kimi K2.7 Code cost about 94% less than Fable 5 and yielded similar-quality output, especially after we gave Kimi the right context with a design MCP.

We published our findings on the OVSC website, along with all variants generated by Claude Opus 4.8, Claude Fable 5, and Kimi K2.7 Code. On average Kimi was ~16x cheaper than Fable and ~8x cheaper than Opus.

The OVSC website lets you explore all the landing pages along with breakdowns of total costs, token usage, and generation time.

To understand how we ran this experiment, we started by establishing a baseline and seeing what the model could produce from the prompt alone.

We started with a small set of landing-page prompts across a few different categories, including B2B SaaS, a rooftop speakeasy, and a developer tool for SQL queries. Here's a sample of the prompts we used:

We gave the same prompts to both Kimi K2.7 Code and Claude Fable 5.

Here are the pages that these models created when asked to “Build a landing page for a developer tool that turns SQL queries into charts.”

Unfortunately, both models made landing pages that felt recognizably AI-generated.