Mathworld gives a survey over the number of digits of the record Carmichaelnumbers with $3,4,5,6$ prime factors here
Is there a reason that with $5$ prime factors , the record is much smaller than with $4$ or $6$ prime factors ? Or is this a typo ?
Many constructions of huge Carmichaelnumbers are based on expression having simultaneously to be prime. But why is then the record for $6$ factors much higher ?
The survey you linked is out of date.
Unfortunately there seems to be no updated database for this purpose. However you can find some new record Carmichael numbers, published once in a while at listserv.nodak.edu or mersenneforum.org
Referring to your question, J.N. Muñoz found a 5-Carmichael number with 14241 digits in 2015.