Cost
$8.75per task
Cost per task. One Intelligence Index task at list price, every token counted. Run at max effort.
Claude Fable model by Anthropic
Claude Fable 5
An earlier Claude Fable release for demanding reasoning and long-horizon agentic work.
Where it sits in Anthropic's lineup
- Claude HaikuAnthropic's small, fast Claude model family for high-volume, latency-sensitive work.Claude Haiku 5.5
- Claude SonnetAnthropic's balanced Claude model family.Claude Sonnet 5.5
- Claude OpusAnthropic's high-capability Claude model family.Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude FableAnthropic's Claude family for demanding reasoning and long-horizon agentic work.You are on Claude Fable 5. Current:Claude Fable 5.1
- Offered in
- 4 products
- Made by
- Anthropic
- Family
- Claude Fable, version 5
- Released
- Jun 9, 2026 Legacy
- Lifecycle
- Claude API, Claude Platform on AWS, Google Cloud (Anthropic managed) and Microsoft Foundry: Active, with retirement not sooner than Jun 9, 2027, per Anthropic.
- Google Cloud Vertex AI (Google managed): Generally available, with retirement not sooner than Jun 8, 2027, per Google Cloud.
- GitHub Copilot: Generally available, and off by default on Copilot Business and Enterprise because GitHub's data retention agreement does not cover it, per GitHub.
- In its family
- Release 1 of 2 in Claude Fable. The newest is Claude Fable 5.1.
Strengths and weaknesses
Compare with other models Up to 3 beside Claude Fable 5
- Claude Fable 5
Suggested comparisons
The models a buyer weighs against Claude Fable 5, picked on list price and on Artificial Analysis's Intelligence Index of overall quality. Add one to draw it beside Claude Fable 5.
Claude Fable 5
Ranked against the 40 current releases on this chart, Claude Fable 5 ranks third of 31 on Factuality, 4th of 39 on Hard reasoning and 4th of 38 on Code. Instruction following is Artificial Analysis's run on IFBench, marked on the chart. It ranks lowest on Science, 24th of 25 and Answers in full, 19th of 26. Computer use and Multimodal: not yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026.
Each axis is one public benchmark at one setting, on its own fixed 0 to 100 scale, so adding a model never moves another. A dotted bridge crosses a missing result, which is never a zero. A hollow mark is a result from another source: the maker's own figure or another lab's run, where the benchmark's usual source has not tested the model yet. The readout names it.
On the chart
- Claude Fable 5This pageResults on 10 of 12 axes$10 / $5070 tokens/sFirst token in 85 s
Prices and speeds read between Oct 26, 2026 and Oct 28, 2026.
Claude Fable 5 on each axis10 of 12 with a result
The share of Terminal-Bench 4.0's long terminal tasks the model finishes on its own: services, kernels, proofs and data pipelines, graded on the final artifact with no partial credit.
Terminal-Bench 4.0, pass@1 averaged over 3 runs, mini-swe-agent harness
- Claude Fable 541.4%
The share of SciCode's scientific programming subproblems the model's code solves on the first attempt.
SciCode, subproblem accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run
- Claude Fable 561%Artificial Analysis tested Fable 5 with its Opus 4.8 fallback switched on, the setup its model page lists.
The share of FrontierMath's held-out research-grade problems (tiers 1 to 3) the model answers correctly.
FrontierMath Tiers 1-3, accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run
- Claude Fable 587%
The share of GPQA Diamond's graduate-level biology, chemistry and physics questions the model answers correctly.
GPQA Diamond, accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run
- Claude Fable 585.9%
The share of Humanity's Last Exam's 2,158 text-only questions, expert-written at the edge of human knowledge, the model answers correctly without tools.
Humanity's Last Exam, accuracy, text-only questions, no tools
- Claude Fable 555.5%Artificial Analysis tested Fable 5 with its Opus 4.8 fallback switched on, the setup its model page lists.
The share of each AutomationBench task's objectives the model completes by calling REST APIs across simulated business apps (Gmail, Sheets, Slack, Salesforce, Zendesk, Jira, HubSpot), averaged over tasks. A task that breaks one of its policy guardrails scores zero.
AutomationBench-AA, score, Artificial Analysis run
- Claude Fable 554.1%Artificial Analysis tested Fable 5 with its Opus 4.8 fallback switched on, the setup its model page lists.
How much of each OSWorld 2.1 workflow the model completes by operating a real Ubuntu desktop through screenshots, mouse and keyboard: all 108 long tasks across apps, files, mail and browsers, on the September 2026 v2.1 release of the task files. A point is the mean share of each task's weighted checks the model passes (the partial score, as a percentage). The OSWorld team's own runs come first. Where the team has not run a release, the point is another lab's run or the maker's own published figure, marked with who ran it and the benchmark it ran: OSWorld 2.1 in the maker's harness, OSWorld 2.0's offline set or the earlier OSWorld-Verified. Those points are drawn so the release has a figure, and they are not ranked against the team's runs.
OSWorld 2.1, partial score, full 108-task set, v2.1 release
- Claude Fable 5Not yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026
The share of AA-LCR's questions the model answers correctly by reasoning across long sets of real documents, about 100K tokens each.
AA-LCR v1.1, accuracy, Artificial Analysis run
- Claude Fable 582.3%Artificial Analysis tested Fable 5 with its Opus 4.8 fallback switched on, the setup its model page lists.
The share of MMMU-Pro's college-level questions over charts, diagrams and photos the model answers correctly.
MMMU-Pro, overall accuracy, no tools
- Claude Fable 5Not yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026
The share of AA-Omniscience's 6,000 knowledge questions across 42 economically relevant topics the model answers correctly from memory, without search.
AA-Omniscience Accuracy, accuracy, Artificial Analysis run
- Claude Fable 565.4%Artificial Analysis tested Fable 5 with its Opus 4.8 fallback switched on, the setup its model page lists.Hallucination rate 63.6% in the same run (lower is better)
The share of SpeechMap's 2,120 sensitive and controversial but legal requests the model answers in full: arguments, essays and explanations on contested themes in politics, religion, race, sex, history and similar topics, four wordings per theme across 530 themes. SpeechMap's judge rates each response complete, evasive (hedged or redirected), a denial, or an error (the provider's API blocked the request). Only complete answers count, so the point is the share answered in full: 100 minus the share hedged, refused or blocked by the provider. Higher means more lawful requests answered in full. The share blocked at the provider is printed apart in the table, because an API error is not the model declining. Where SpeechMap runs a release both with reasoning off and with reasoning on (a -reasoning or -thinking entry), the reasoning-on entry is used; a release with one entry uses that entry.
SpeechMap, % Complete over 2,120 contested requests, reasoning-on entry
- Claude Fable 564.8%With reasoning on, SpeechMap counted 27.9% of requests denied and 5.0% evaded. Another 2.4% failed at the provider and count against the score.2.4% of requests failed at the provider and count against it
The share of MultiChallenge's multi-turn conversations in which the model keeps every instruction it was given earlier in the conversation.
MultiChallenge, accuracy, Scale AI run. Where it has no run of a model, the maker's own figure or another lab's run stands in, marked with its benchmark.
- Claude Fable 563.5%Artificial Analysis's runBenchmark: IFBench, accuracy, Artificial Analysis IFBench run. From another source, so it is drawn and marked but not ranked with the others.Artificial Analysis ran Claude Fable 5 at max effort in its own evaluation harness. The run routes some requests to Opus 4.8 as a fallback.
Cost, speed, capacity, quality and accuracy for Claude Fable 5, with where each figure sits among the 41 models GILD tracks. These measures stand beside the chart and never feed it.
Speed
67tokens a second
Output speed. How fast it writes once the answer starts. Run at max effort.
- First token
- 102 s
- Whole answer
- 109 s
Capacity
1Mtokens
Context window. The most one request can hold, as the maker states it.
- Reads
- Text, Images
Quality
49.6of 100
Intelligence Index. One composite score across independent evaluations. Run at max effort.
- GDPval knowledge work
- 1,610 Elo
- Terminal-Bench 4.0
- 42.4%
- Epoch Capabilities Index
- 163
Hallucination
63.6%wrong when it should say “I don’t know”
Hallucination rate. Of the questions it can't get right, how often it answers anyway. Lower is better. Run at max effort.
- Knowledge accuracy
- 65.4%
Where you can get it
14of 19 routes
Routes offering it. Of the clouds, gateways and coding products GILD tracks, those offering it today.
- Open weights
- No
- Licence
- Commercial Terms of Service
Figures from Artificial Analysis, Anthropic, Epoch AI and GILD's route matrix, read Oct 26 to Nov 1, 2026. Each measure's definition and source open under . Not yet published for Claude Fable 5: Cached input and Max output.
Every value with its benchmark, run and source
| Axis | Benchmark and setting | Claude Fable 5 | Run | Source | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic coding | Terminal-Bench 4.0Pass@1 averaged over 3 runs, mini-swe-agent harness | 41.4% | Claude Fable 5Effort: not published. Harness: mini-swe-agent. | Vals.ai | Oct 24, 2026 |
| Code | SciCodeSubproblem accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run. Artificial Analysis tested Fable 5 with its Opus 4.8 fallback switched on, the setup its model page lists. | 61% | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback)Effort: max. Harness: none.Run as Anthropic serves it by default: requests its safeguards stop are answered by Claude Opus 4.8. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Math | FrontierMath Tiers 1-3Accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run | 87% | Effort: max. Harness: none. | Epoch AI | Jun 9, 2026 |
| Science | GPQA DiamondAccuracy, pass@1, highest effort run | 85.9% | Effort: max. Harness: none. | Epoch AI | Jun 9, 2026 |
| Hard reasoning | Humanity's Last ExamAccuracy, text-only questions, no tools. Artificial Analysis tested Fable 5 with its Opus 4.8 fallback switched on, the setup its model page lists. | 55.5% | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback)Effort: max. Harness: none.Run as Anthropic serves it by default: requests its safeguards stop are answered by Claude Opus 4.8. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Tool use | AutomationBench-AAScore, Artificial Analysis run. Artificial Analysis tested Fable 5 with its Opus 4.8 fallback switched on, the setup its model page lists. | 54.1% | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback)Effort: max. Harness: Artificial Analysis AutomationBench harness.Run as Anthropic serves it by default: requests its safeguards stop are answered by Claude Opus 4.8. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Computer use | OSWorld 2.1Partial score, full 108-task set, v2.1 release | Not yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026 | |||
| Long context | AA-LCR v1.1Accuracy, Artificial Analysis run. Artificial Analysis tested Fable 5 with its Opus 4.8 fallback switched on, the setup its model page lists. | 82.3% | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback)Effort: max. Harness: none.Run as Anthropic serves it by default: requests its safeguards stop are answered by Claude Opus 4.8. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Multimodal | MMMU-ProOverall accuracy, no tools | Not yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026 | |||
| Factuality | AA-Omniscience AccuracyAccuracy, Artificial Analysis run. Artificial Analysis tested Fable 5 with its Opus 4.8 fallback switched on, the setup its model page lists. | 65.4%Hallucination rate 63.6% in the same run (lower is better) | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback)Effort: max. Harness: none.Run as Anthropic serves it by default: requests its safeguards stop are answered by Claude Opus 4.8. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Answers in full | SpeechMap% Complete over 2,120 contested requests, reasoning-on entry. With reasoning on, SpeechMap counted 27.9% of requests denied and 5.0% evaded. Another 2.4% failed at the provider and count against the score. | 64.8%2.4% of requests failed at the provider and count against it | Effort: reasoning on. Harness: none. | SpeechMap.AI | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Instruction following | IFBenchAccuracy, Artificial Analysis IFBench run. Artificial Analysis ran Claude Fable 5 at max effort in its own evaluation harness. The run routes some requests to Opus 4.8 as a fallback.Stands in for MultiChallenge, accuracy, Scale AI run, which has no run of Claude Fable 5 yet. | 63.5% | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback)Effort: max. Harness: none. | Artificial AnalysisRun by Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
Price and speed
- Claude Fable 5 lists at $10 per million input tokens and $50 per million output tokens. Anthropic pricing, Oct 26, 2026.
- Claude Fable 5, at max effort, writes 70.2 output tokens per second on Anthropic's API, and its first token arrives 85 s after the request. Artificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026.
- Fastest on the chart is the shortest time to a 500-token answer: time to first token plus 500 tokens at the median output speed.
Every model with a result, axis by axis
57 models. A maker's own figure and another lab's run are marked with their benchmark; a missing result reads "Not yet published", never zero.
| Model | Agentic coding | Code | Math | Science | Hard reasoning | Tool use | Computer use | Long context | Multimodal | Factuality | Answers in full | Instructions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Fable 5 | 41.4% | 61% | 87% | 85.9% | 55.5% | 54.1% | Not yet published | 82.3% | Not yet published | 65.4% | 64.8% | 63.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | 36.4% | 55% | 75.1% | 89.6% | 44.4% | 35.4% | 72.4%Reported by AnthropicOSWorld 2.1 | 82.7% | Not yet published | 34.7% | 78.8% | 67.7% |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 | 64.1% | 61% | 88.8% | 95.6% | 55% | 71.8% | 80.1%Reported by Anthropic | 82.7% | Not yet published | 51.5% | 81.6% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 5.5 | 65.2% | 66.9% | 91.2% | 90.6% | 61.4% | 69.5% | 81.8%Reported by Anthropic | 84.7% | 87.7% | 65.5% | 82.8% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Fable 5.1 | 58.1% | 63.1% | 90.2% | 93.4%Run by Vals.ai | 59.1% | 59.4% | 80.7%Reported by Anthropic | 85.3% | 86.3%Run by Moonshot AI | 68.4% | 72.4% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 5 | 53.5% | 56.4% | 85.6% | 93.9% | 54.9% | 56.6% | 77.7% | 79.3% | 84.7% | 60.9% | 73.7% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Sonnet 5 | 10.6% | 54.3% | 65.6% | 80.3% | 41.3% | 36.5% | 57%Reported by Anthropic | 82% | 77.3% | 40.1% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 4.8 | 23.2% | 54.4% | 80% | 91% | 48.7% | 45.6% | 54.8%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 77.7% | Not yet published | 48.8% | 67.4% | 62.2%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 4.7 | Not yet published | 54.5% | 70.2% | 86.4% | 42.3% | Not yet published | 48.9%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 78.7% | 78.8% | 48.9% | 70.2% | 58.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 3%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 50.1% | 71.1%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 78.8% | 33.6% | 20.1% | 41.5%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 80% | 73.3% | 40.9% | 35.8% | 56.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 4.6 | Not yet published | Not yet published | 66% | 88.4% | 39.9% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 78% | 75.4% | 47% | 59.9% | 37.2% |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 4.5 | Not yet published | Not yet published | 34.4% | 86% | 30.1% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 77.3% | 74% | 46.6% | 57.5% | 59% |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | Not yet published | 42.2% | 66.7%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 71.2% | 10.4% | 3.2% | Not yet published | 74.3% | 58.6% | 18% | 24.7% | 50.5% |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Not yet published | 45.7% | 23.9% | 82.3% | 17.8% | 14.1% | Not yet published | 72.3% | 68.7% | 32.9% | 31.4% | 55.3% |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6.1 Terra | 49.5% | 55.1% | 90.9% | 94.3% | 46.2% | 60.2% | 74.2%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.1 | 82.7% | 84.7% | 47.6% | Not yet published | 74.2% |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 55.1% | 54.2% | 93.7% | 95.4% | 52.9% | 64.9% | 78%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.1 | 83% | 86% | 61.8% | 69.5% | 82% |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6 Luna | 13.6% | 54.6% | 78.9% | 90.5% | 38.5% | 53.2% | 48.9%Run by AnthropicOSWorld 2.1 | 83.3% | 79.7% | 39.6% | 63.4% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6 Astra | 59.6% | 56.5% | 93.7% | 95.8% | 54.7% | 68.5% | 75.8%Run by Meta | 80.7% | 86.9% | 61.6% | 68.2% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.6 Sol | 37.9% | 57.1% | 89.1% | 93.5% | 49.5% | 60.1% | 62.7%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 84% | 83.4% | 69.7%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | 72.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.6 Terra | 22.7% | 55% | 86% | 93.3% | 42.9% | 59.6% | Not yet published | 83% | 80.7% | 42.3% | Not yet published | 71.2%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.6 Luna | 11.6% | 53.6% | 82.1% | 91.6% | 39.5% | 50.2% | Not yet published | 83.7% | 78.6% | 41%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.5 | 14.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 55.8% | 85.3% | 93.5%Run by Artificial Analysis | 45.8% | 47.3% | 49.5%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 84.3% | 79.9% | 63%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | 75.9%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.4 | Not yet published | Not yet published | 78.6% | 93.3% | 43.7% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 82% | 78.4% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 73.9%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| gpt-oss-120b | 14.2%Run by Terminal-Bench (via Epoch AI)Terminal-Bench 2.0 | 34% | 88.9%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 75.8% | 19.6% | 0.2% | Not yet published | 52% | Not yet published | 16.8%Reported by OpenAISimpleQA | 36.3% | 45.3% |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6 Sol | 44.4% | 57.6% | 89.8% | 94.3% | 47.9% | 61.6% | 64.4%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.0 | 83.7% | 82.9% | 54.5% | 64% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.3-Codex | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | 91.5%Run by Artificial Analysis | 42.5% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 83.3% | 78.5% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 75.4%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemini 4 Argon | 57.6% | 61.8% | 86% | 96.4% | 57.1% | 77.5% | 69.2%Reported by GoogleOSWorld 2.0 | 79.7% | Not yet published | 48.3% | 87% | 78.7% |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemini 3.8 Flash | 19.7% | 56.6% | 68.4% | 95.4% | 47.8% | 59.9% | 59%Reported by GoogleOSWorld 2.0 | 81.3% | 85.6% | 50.5% | 86.1% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemma 4 31B | Not yet published | 45.5% | Not yet published | 85.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond | 23.6% | 4.9% | Not yet published | 69.7% | 73.4% | 10.4%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 82.3% | 75.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | 2.5% | 58.7% | 59.6% | 94.4% | 47% | 35.4% | Not yet published | 82% | 82.4% | 54.9% | 59.9% | 71.4% |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemini 3.6 Flash | 7.1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 53.4% | 58.9% | 94.1% | 40.8% | 53% | 83%Reported by GoogleOSWorld-Verified | 80% | 83.2% | 66.2%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 87.2% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | 31.8% | 55.9% | 71.2% | 93.2% | 43.3% | 66.6% | 69.3%Run by Moonshot AIOSWorld 2.1 | 82.7% | 80.6% | 39.6% | Not yet published | 74.9% |
| ||||||||||||
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 14.1% | 51% | 64.6% | 91.7% | 41% | 56.7% | Not yet published | 80.3% | Not yet published | 45.2% | 72% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Kimi K3.1 Pro | 63.6% | 60.8% | Not yet published | 94.2%Reported by Moonshot AI | 52.5% | 73.3% | 79.6%Reported by Moonshot AIOSWorld 2.1 | 86.3% | 83.9% | 48.9% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Kimi K3 | 17.2% | 59.5% | 72.2% | 93.1% | 46.9% | 58.3% | Not yet published | 88.7% | 80.5% | 50.6%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 65.9% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Kimi K2.7 Code | 1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 47.8% | 54% | 87.9% | 35% | 24.5% | Not yet published | 79.3% | Not yet published | 36.5%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | 63.1%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Mistral Large 4 | 24.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | 57.8% | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | 26% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Mistral Medium 3.5 | 0%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 40.2% | Not yet published | 74.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond | 13.8% | 6.3% | Not yet published | 69.3% | 64.9% | 23% | 70.5% | 68.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Grok 4.7 | 28.8% | 57.4% | 53% | 92.7% | 43.1% | 65.6% | Not yet published | 76.7% | Not yet published | 42.7% | 64.1% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Grok 4.6 | 17.2% | 56.5% | 66% | 93.2% | 42.9% | 66.7% | Not yet published | 80.3% | Not yet published | 48.9%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 83.6% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Grok 4.5 | 8.6% | 55% | 57.2% | 93.4% | 42.7% | 57.9% | Not yet published | 79.3% | 80.4% | 48.3%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 93.1% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| MiniMax M3.1 Flash | 25.3% | 53.4% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 48% | 72.5% | 61.7%Reported by MiniMaxOSWorld 2.0 | 79.7% | 79.1% | 45.1% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Mercury 3 | 3% | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| GLM-5.3-Flash | 37.4% | 51.6% | 55.8% | 90.2% | 39.9% | 60.4% | 59.1%Reported by Z.aiOSWorld 2.0 | 80% | 86%Run by Vals.aiMMMU-Pro | 28.2% | 65.4% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GLM-5.3 | 38.9% | 59% | 68.8% | 90.9% | 42.3% | 62.2% | Not yet published | 79.7% | Not yet published | 32.3% | 71.5% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GLM-5.2 | 1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 51.2% | 59.2% | Not yet published | 41.1% | 28.4% | Not yet published | 78.3% | Not yet published | 34.2%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | 73.3%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Muse Spark Open | 6.6% | 58.4% | 69.8% | 88.6% | 43.9% | 49.7% | 80.4%Reported by MetaOSWorld-Verified | 78.3% | 80.9% | 42% | Not yet published | 74.2% |
| ||||||||||||
| Muse Wonder | 49.5% | 60.3% | 82.1% | Not yet published | 50.1% | 68.1% | 72.6%Reported by Meta | 80.7% | Not yet published | 38% | 42.7% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Muse Spark 1.3 | 10.6% | 58.8% | 74% | 93.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond | 48.7% | 57.9% | 69.6% | 83% | 82% | 38% | 25.8% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Llama 4 Scout | Not yet published | 21.3% | 7.8%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 51.8% | 3.8% | 0.2% | Not yet published | 27.7% | 52.9% | Not yet published | 70.1% | 39.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Llama 4 Maverick | Not yet published | 31.7% | 20.6%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 67% | 4.9% | 0.2% | Not yet published | 50% | 62.1% | Not yet published | 58.3% | 43%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Qwen3.8 27B | 5.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 46.6% | Not yet published | 90.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond | 33.9% | 48.2% | 84.3%Reported by AlibabaOSWorld-Verified | 82% | 76.3% | 17.3% | Not yet published | 79.5%Reported by AlibabaIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Qwen3.8 Max | 38.9% | 52.1% | 65.6% | 92.3% | 43.1% | 56.2% | Not yet published | 80.3% | 82.8% | 29.5% | 65.3% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| MiMo-V2.6-Pro | 31.3% | 60.9% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 49.4% | 58.6% | 82%Reported by XiaomiOSWorld-Verified | 86.3% | Not yet published | 34.8% | 66.5% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash | 24.2% | 51.3% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 35.1% | 64.1% | 80.8%Reported by XiaomiOSWorld-Verified | 74.3% | 73.1% | 27.2% | 66.9% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Ling 3.1 Flash | 32.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 56.8% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 43.5% | 67.5% | Not yet published | 82.3% | Not yet published | 26.5% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Step 5 Preview | 31.8% | 58.9% | Not yet published | 93.5%Reported by StepFunGPQA Diamond | 46.5% | 51% | Not yet published | 88.3% | 76.4% | 36.4% | 59.7% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
Agentic codingTerminal-Bench 4.0
- Claude Opus 5.565.2%
- Claude Sonnet 5.564.1%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro63.6%
- GPT-6 Astra59.6%
- Claude Fable 5.158.1%
- Gemini 4 Argon57.6%
- GPT-6.1 Sol55.1%
- Claude Opus 553.5%
- GPT-6.1 Terra49.5%
- Muse Wonder49.5%
- GPT-6 Sol44.4%
- Claude Fable 541.4%
- GLM-5.338.9%
- Qwen3.8 Max38.9%
- GPT-5.6 Sol37.9%
- GLM-5.3-Flash37.4%
- Claude Haiku 5.536.4%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash31.8%
- Step 5 Preview31.8%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro31.3%
- Grok 4.728.8%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash25.3%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash24.2%
- Claude Opus 4.823.2%
- GPT-5.6 Terra22.7%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash19.7%
- Kimi K317.2%
- Grok 4.617.2%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro14.1%
- GPT-6 Luna13.6%
- GPT-5.6 Luna11.6%
- Claude Sonnet 510.6%
- Muse Spark 1.310.6%
- Grok 4.58.6%
- Muse Spark Open6.6%
- Mercury 33%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview2.5%
- Ling 3.1 Flash32.8%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Mistral Large 424.7%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- GPT-5.514.6%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- gpt-oss-120b14.2%Terminal-Bench's run, Terminal-Bench 2.0
- Gemini 3.6 Flash7.1%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Qwen3.8 27B5.6%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Claude Sonnet 4.63%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Kimi K2.7 Code1%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- GLM-5.21%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Mistral Medium 3.50%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
The other models in the grid have no result on Terminal-Bench 4.0 yet.
CodeSciCode
- Claude Opus 5.566.9%
- Claude Fable 5.163.1%
- Gemini 4 Argon61.8%
- Claude Fable 561%
- Claude Sonnet 5.561%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro60.9%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro60.8%
- Muse Wonder60.3%
- Kimi K359.5%
- GLM-5.359%
- Step 5 Preview58.9%
- Muse Spark 1.358.8%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview58.7%
- Muse Spark Open58.4%
- GPT-6 Sol57.6%
- Grok 4.757.4%
- GPT-5.6 Sol57.1%
- Ling 3.1 Flash56.8%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash56.6%
- GPT-6 Astra56.5%
- Grok 4.656.5%
- Claude Opus 556.4%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash55.9%
- GPT-5.555.8%
- GPT-6.1 Terra55.1%
- Claude Haiku 5.555%
- GPT-5.6 Terra55%
- Grok 4.555%
- GPT-6 Luna54.6%
- Claude Opus 4.754.5%
- Claude Opus 4.854.4%
- Claude Sonnet 554.3%
- GPT-6.1 Sol54.2%
- GPT-5.6 Luna53.6%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash53.4%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash53.4%
- Qwen3.8 Max52.1%
- GLM-5.3-Flash51.6%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash51.3%
- GLM-5.251.2%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro51%
- Claude Sonnet 4.650.1%
- Kimi K2.7 Code47.8%
- Qwen3.8 27B46.6%
- Claude Sonnet 4.545.7%
- Gemma 4 31B45.5%
- Claude Haiku 4.542.2%
- Mistral Medium 3.540.2%
- gpt-oss-120b34%
- Llama 4 Maverick31.7%
- Llama 4 Scout21.3%
The other models in the grid have no result on SciCode yet.
MathFrontierMath Tiers 1-3
- GPT-6.1 Sol93.7%
- GPT-6 Astra93.7%
- Claude Opus 5.591.2%
- GPT-6.1 Terra90.9%
- Claude Fable 5.190.2%
- GPT-6 Sol89.8%
- GPT-5.6 Sol89.1%
- Claude Sonnet 5.588.8%
- Claude Fable 587%
- GPT-5.6 Terra86%
- Gemini 4 Argon86%
- Claude Opus 585.6%
- GPT-5.585.3%
- GPT-5.6 Luna82.1%
- Muse Wonder82.1%
- Claude Opus 4.880%
- GPT-6 Luna78.9%
- GPT-5.478.6%
- Claude Haiku 5.575.1%
- Muse Spark 1.374%
- Kimi K372.2%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash71.2%
- Claude Opus 4.770.2%
- Muse Spark Open69.8%
- GLM-5.368.8%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash68.4%
- Claude Opus 4.666%
- Grok 4.666%
- Claude Sonnet 565.6%
- Qwen3.8 Max65.6%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro64.6%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview59.6%
- GLM-5.259.2%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash58.9%
- Grok 4.557.2%
- GLM-5.3-Flash55.8%
- Kimi K2.7 Code54%
- Grok 4.753%
- Claude Opus 4.534.4%
- Claude Sonnet 4.523.9%
- gpt-oss-120b88.9%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
- Claude Sonnet 4.671.1%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
- Claude Haiku 4.566.7%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
- Llama 4 Maverick20.6%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
- Llama 4 Scout7.8%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
The other models in the grid have no result on FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 yet.
ScienceGPQA Diamond
- Gemini 4 Argon96.4%
- GPT-6 Astra95.8%
- Claude Sonnet 5.595.6%
- GPT-6.1 Sol95.4%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash95.4%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview94.4%
- GPT-6.1 Terra94.3%
- GPT-6 Sol94.3%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash94.1%
- Claude Opus 593.9%
- GPT-5.6 Sol93.5%
- Grok 4.593.4%
- GPT-5.6 Terra93.3%
- GPT-5.493.3%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash93.2%
- Grok 4.693.2%
- Kimi K393.1%
- Grok 4.792.7%
- Qwen3.8 Max92.3%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro91.7%
- GPT-5.6 Luna91.6%
- Claude Opus 4.891%
- GLM-5.390.9%
- Claude Opus 5.590.6%
- GPT-6 Luna90.5%
- GLM-5.3-Flash90.2%
- Claude Haiku 5.589.6%
- Muse Spark Open88.6%
- Claude Opus 4.688.4%
- Kimi K2.7 Code87.9%
- Claude Opus 4.786.4%
- Claude Opus 4.586%
- Claude Fable 585.9%
- Claude Sonnet 4.582.3%
- Claude Sonnet 580.3%
- Claude Sonnet 4.678.8%
- gpt-oss-120b75.8%
- Claude Haiku 4.571.2%
- Llama 4 Maverick67%
- Llama 4 Scout51.8%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro94.2%Moonshot AI's own figure
- GPT-5.593.5%Artificial Analysis's run
- Muse Spark 1.393.5%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
- Step 5 Preview93.5%StepFun's own figure, GPQA Diamond
- Claude Fable 5.193.4%Vals.ai's run
- GPT-5.3-Codex91.5%Artificial Analysis's run
- Qwen3.8 27B90.5%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
- Gemma 4 31B85.7%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
- Mistral Medium 3.574.8%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
The other models in the grid have no result on GPQA Diamond yet.
Hard reasoningHumanity's Last Exam
- Claude Opus 5.561.4%
- Claude Fable 5.159.1%
- Gemini 4 Argon57.1%
- Claude Fable 555.5%
- Claude Sonnet 5.555%
- Claude Opus 554.9%
- GPT-6 Astra54.7%
- GPT-6.1 Sol52.9%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro52.5%
- Muse Wonder50.1%
- GPT-5.6 Sol49.5%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro49.4%
- Claude Opus 4.848.7%
- Muse Spark 1.348.7%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash48%
- GPT-6 Sol47.9%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash47.8%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview47%
- Kimi K346.9%
- Step 5 Preview46.5%
- GPT-6.1 Terra46.2%
- GPT-5.545.8%
- Claude Haiku 5.544.4%
- Muse Spark Open43.9%
- GPT-5.443.7%
- Ling 3.1 Flash43.5%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash43.3%
- Grok 4.743.1%
- Qwen3.8 Max43.1%
- GPT-5.6 Terra42.9%
- Grok 4.642.9%
- Grok 4.542.7%
- GPT-5.3-Codex42.5%
- Claude Opus 4.742.3%
- GLM-5.342.3%
- Claude Sonnet 541.3%
- GLM-5.241.1%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro41%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash40.8%
- Claude Opus 4.639.9%
- GLM-5.3-Flash39.9%
- GPT-5.6 Luna39.5%
- GPT-6 Luna38.5%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash35.1%
- Kimi K2.7 Code35%
- Qwen3.8 27B33.9%
- Claude Sonnet 4.633.6%
- Claude Opus 4.530.1%
- Gemma 4 31B23.6%
- gpt-oss-120b19.6%
- Claude Sonnet 4.517.8%
- Mistral Medium 3.513.8%
- Claude Haiku 4.510.4%
- Llama 4 Maverick4.9%
- Llama 4 Scout3.8%
The other models in the grid have no result on Humanity's Last Exam yet.
Tool useAutomationBench-AA
- Gemini 4 Argon77.5%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro73.3%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash72.5%
- Claude Sonnet 5.571.8%
- Claude Opus 5.569.5%
- GPT-6 Astra68.5%
- Muse Wonder68.1%
- Ling 3.1 Flash67.5%
- Grok 4.666.7%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash66.6%
- Grok 4.765.6%
- GPT-6.1 Sol64.9%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash64.1%
- GLM-5.362.2%
- GPT-6 Sol61.6%
- GLM-5.3-Flash60.4%
- GPT-6.1 Terra60.2%
- GPT-5.6 Sol60.1%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash59.9%
- GPT-5.6 Terra59.6%
- Claude Fable 5.159.4%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro58.6%
- Kimi K358.3%
- Grok 4.557.9%
- Muse Spark 1.357.9%
- Mistral Large 457.8%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro56.7%
- Claude Opus 556.6%
- Qwen3.8 Max56.2%
- Claude Fable 554.1%
- GPT-6 Luna53.2%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash53%
- Step 5 Preview51%
- GPT-5.6 Luna50.2%
- Muse Spark Open49.7%
- Qwen3.8 27B48.2%
- GPT-5.547.3%
- Claude Opus 4.845.6%
- Claude Sonnet 536.5%
- Claude Haiku 5.535.4%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview35.4%
- GLM-5.228.4%
- Kimi K2.7 Code24.5%
- Claude Sonnet 4.620.1%
- Claude Sonnet 4.514.1%
- Mistral Medium 3.56.3%
- Gemma 4 31B4.9%
- Claude Haiku 4.53.2%
- gpt-oss-120b0.2%
- Llama 4 Scout0.2%
- Llama 4 Maverick0.2%
The other models in the grid have no result on AutomationBench-AA yet.
Computer useOSWorld 2.1
- Claude Opus 577.7%
- Muse Spark 1.369.6%
- Qwen3.8 27B84.3%Alibaba's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- Gemini 3.6 Flash83%Google's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro82%Xiaomi's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- Claude Opus 5.581.8%Anthropic's own figure
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash80.8%Xiaomi's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- Claude Fable 5.180.7%Anthropic's own figure
- Muse Spark Open80.4%Meta's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- Claude Sonnet 5.580.1%Anthropic's own figure
- Kimi K3.1 Pro79.6%Moonshot AI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
- GPT-6.1 Sol78%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
- GPT-6 Astra75.8%Meta's run
- GPT-6.1 Terra74.2%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
- Muse Wonder72.6%Meta's own figure
- Claude Haiku 5.572.4%Anthropic's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash69.3%Moonshot AI's run, OSWorld 2.1
- Gemini 4 Argon69.2%Google's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- GPT-6 Sol64.4%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- GPT-5.6 Sol62.7%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash61.7%MiniMax's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- GLM-5.3-Flash59.1%Z.ai's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- Gemini 3.8 Flash59%Google's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- Claude Sonnet 557%Anthropic's own figure
- Claude Opus 4.854.8%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
- GPT-5.549.5%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
- Claude Opus 4.748.9%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
- GPT-6 Luna48.9%Anthropic's run, OSWorld 2.1
- Claude Sonnet 4.641.5%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
The other models in the grid have no result on OSWorld 2.1 yet.
Long contextAA-LCR v1.1
- Kimi K388.7%
- Step 5 Preview88.3%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro86.3%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro86.3%
- Claude Fable 5.185.3%
- Claude Opus 5.584.7%
- GPT-5.584.3%
- GPT-5.6 Sol84%
- GPT-5.6 Luna83.7%
- GPT-6 Sol83.7%
- GPT-6 Luna83.3%
- GPT-5.3-Codex83.3%
- GPT-6.1 Sol83%
- GPT-5.6 Terra83%
- Muse Spark 1.383%
- Claude Haiku 5.582.7%
- Claude Sonnet 5.582.7%
- GPT-6.1 Terra82.7%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash82.7%
- Claude Fable 582.3%
- Ling 3.1 Flash82.3%
- Claude Sonnet 582%
- GPT-5.482%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview82%
- Qwen3.8 27B82%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash81.3%
- GPT-6 Astra80.7%
- Muse Wonder80.7%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro80.3%
- Grok 4.680.3%
- Qwen3.8 Max80.3%
- Claude Sonnet 4.680%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash80%
- GLM-5.3-Flash80%
- Gemini 4 Argon79.7%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.7%
- GLM-5.379.7%
- Claude Opus 579.3%
- Kimi K2.7 Code79.3%
- Grok 4.579.3%
- Claude Opus 4.778.7%
- GLM-5.278.3%
- Muse Spark Open78.3%
- Claude Opus 4.678%
- Claude Opus 4.877.7%
- Claude Opus 4.577.3%
- Grok 4.776.7%
- Claude Haiku 4.574.3%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash74.3%
- Claude Sonnet 4.572.3%
- Gemma 4 31B69.7%
- Mistral Medium 3.569.3%
- gpt-oss-120b52%
- Llama 4 Maverick50%
- Llama 4 Scout27.7%
The other models in the grid have no result on AA-LCR v1.1 yet.
MultimodalMMMU-Pro
- Claude Opus 5.587.7%
- GPT-6 Astra86.9%
- GPT-6.1 Sol86%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash85.6%
- Claude Opus 584.7%
- GPT-6.1 Terra84.7%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro83.9%
- GPT-5.6 Sol83.4%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash83.2%
- GPT-6 Sol82.9%
- Qwen3.8 Max82.8%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview82.4%
- Muse Spark 1.382%
- Muse Spark Open80.9%
- GPT-5.6 Terra80.7%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash80.6%
- Kimi K380.5%
- Grok 4.580.4%
- GPT-5.579.9%
- GPT-6 Luna79.7%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.1%
- Claude Opus 4.778.8%
- GPT-5.6 Luna78.6%
- GPT-5.3-Codex78.5%
- GPT-5.478.4%
- Claude Sonnet 577.3%
- Step 5 Preview76.4%
- Qwen3.8 27B76.3%
- Claude Opus 4.675.4%
- Claude Opus 4.574%
- Gemma 4 31B73.4%
- Claude Sonnet 4.673.3%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash73.1%
- Claude Sonnet 4.568.7%
- Mistral Medium 3.564.9%
- Llama 4 Maverick62.1%
- Claude Haiku 4.558.6%
- Llama 4 Scout52.9%
- Claude Fable 5.186.3%Moonshot AI's run
- GLM-5.3-Flash86%Vals.ai's run, MMMU-Pro
The other models in the grid have no result on MMMU-Pro yet.
FactualityAA-Omniscience Accuracy
- Claude Fable 5.168.4%
- Claude Opus 5.565.5%
- Claude Fable 565.4%
- GPT-6.1 Sol61.8%
- GPT-6 Astra61.6%
- Claude Opus 560.9%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview54.9%
- GPT-6 Sol54.5%
- Claude Sonnet 5.551.5%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash50.5%
- Claude Opus 4.748.9%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro48.9%
- Claude Opus 4.848.8%
- Gemini 4 Argon48.3%
- GPT-6.1 Terra47.6%
- Claude Opus 4.647%
- Claude Opus 4.546.6%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro45.2%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash45.1%
- Grok 4.742.7%
- GPT-5.6 Terra42.3%
- Muse Spark Open42%
- Claude Sonnet 4.640.9%
- Claude Sonnet 540.1%
- GPT-6 Luna39.6%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash39.6%
- Muse Wonder38%
- Muse Spark 1.338%
- Step 5 Preview36.4%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro34.8%
- Claude Haiku 5.534.7%
- Claude Sonnet 4.532.9%
- GLM-5.332.3%
- Qwen3.8 Max29.5%
- GLM-5.3-Flash28.2%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash27.2%
- Ling 3.1 Flash26.5%
- Mistral Large 426%
- Mistral Medium 3.523%
- Claude Haiku 4.518%
- Qwen3.8 27B17.3%
- GPT-5.6 Sol69.7%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Gemini 3.6 Flash66.2%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- GPT-5.563%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Kimi K350.6%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Grok 4.648.9%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Grok 4.548.3%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- GPT-5.6 Luna41%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Kimi K2.7 Code36.5%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- GLM-5.234.2%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- gpt-oss-120b16.8%OpenAI's own figure, SimpleQA
- Gemma 4 31B10.4%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
The other models in the grid have no result on AA-Omniscience Accuracy yet.
Answers in fullSpeechMap
- Grok 4.593.1%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash87.2%
- Gemini 4 Argon87%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash86.1%
- Grok 4.683.6%
- Claude Opus 5.582.8%
- Gemma 4 31B82.3%
- Claude Sonnet 5.581.6%
- Claude Haiku 5.578.8%
- Claude Opus 573.7%
- Claude Fable 5.172.4%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro72%
- GLM-5.371.5%
- Mistral Medium 3.570.5%
- Claude Opus 4.770.2%
- Llama 4 Scout70.1%
- GPT-6.1 Sol69.5%
- GPT-6 Astra68.2%
- Claude Opus 4.867.4%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash66.9%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro66.5%
- Kimi K365.9%
- GLM-5.3-Flash65.4%
- Qwen3.8 Max65.3%
- Claude Fable 564.8%
- Grok 4.764.1%
- GPT-6 Sol64%
- GPT-6 Luna63.4%
- Claude Opus 4.659.9%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview59.9%
- Step 5 Preview59.7%
- Llama 4 Maverick58.3%
- Claude Opus 4.557.5%
- Muse Wonder42.7%
- gpt-oss-120b36.3%
- Claude Sonnet 4.635.8%
- Claude Sonnet 4.531.4%
- Muse Spark 1.325.8%
- Claude Haiku 4.524.7%
The other models in the grid have no result on SpeechMap yet.
Instruction followingMultiChallenge
- GPT-6.1 Sol82%
- Gemini 4 Argon78.7%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash74.9%
- GPT-6.1 Terra74.2%
- Muse Spark Open74.2%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview71.4%
- Claude Haiku 5.567.7%
- Claude Opus 4.559%
- Claude Sonnet 4.555.3%
- Claude Haiku 4.550.5%
- gpt-oss-120b45.3%
- Claude Opus 4.637.2%
- Qwen3.8 27B79.5%Alibaba's own figure, IFBench
- GPT-5.575.9%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Gemma 4 31B75.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GPT-5.3-Codex75.4%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GPT-5.473.9%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GLM-5.273.3%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GPT-5.6 Sol72.7%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GPT-5.6 Terra71.2%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Mistral Medium 3.568.8%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Claude Fable 563.5%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Kimi K2.7 Code63.1%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Claude Opus 4.862.2%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Claude Opus 4.758.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Claude Sonnet 4.656.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Llama 4 Maverick43%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Llama 4 Scout39.5%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
The other models in the grid have no result on MultiChallenge yet.
Every measure on record
Cost, speed, reliability, knowledge-work and domain results for Claude Fable 5 beyond the twelve chart axes, each with the run it comes from and its publisher. These stay separate measures; none is folded into the chart.
| Measure | Claude Fable 5 | Run | Source | Read |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specs and access | ||||
| Context windowThe most tokens one request can hold, as the maker states it. Size alone says nothing about how well the model uses a long input; the Long context axis measures that. | 1M | Anthropic's pricing page: Claude 4.6 and later models, except Claude Haiku 5.5, include the full 1M token context window | Anthropic | Oct 28, 2026 |
| ReadsThe kinds of input the model accepts. | Text, Images | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 | |
| LicenceThe terms the weights or the service are offered under. | Commercial Terms of Service | Anthropic | Nov 1, 2026 | |
| Open weightsWhether the maker publishes the weights for anyone to run. | No | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 | |
| Routes offering itOf the 19 clouds, gateways and coding products GILD tracks, how many offer the release today, preview included. | 14 of 19 | GILD route matrix | Oct 28, 2026 | |
| Cost | ||||
| Answer tokens per taskLower is better. Answer tokens per Intelligence Index task, reasoning excluded. | 21,807 | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Cost per task, cache readsLower is better. The cache-read share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task. | $3.86 | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Cost per task, cache writesLower is better. The cache-write share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task. | $1.32 | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Cost per task, inputLower is better. The input-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task. | $5.44 | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Cost per task, outputLower is better. The answer-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task. | $3.31 | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Cost per task, reasoningLower is better. The reasoning-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task. | $2.23 | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Cost per taskLower is better. What one Intelligence Index task cost AA at list price, input, cache, output and reasoning tokens together. | $8.75 | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Cost to run the indexLower is better. What the whole Intelligence Index run cost AA at list price. The runs cost from tens of dollars to about $13,000, so the axis is log from $10 to $100,000. | $11,161 | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Output tokens per taskLower is better. Tokens the model wrote per Intelligence Index task, reasoning included: how verbose it is. | 66,848 | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Reasoning tokens per taskLower is better. Reasoning tokens per Intelligence Index task. | 45,041 | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Speed | ||||
| End-to-end response timeLower is better. Seconds AA measures for a whole response on its standard prompt. | 109 s | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Time to first answer tokenLower is better. Seconds until the first answer token, after any reasoning, on AA's API runs. | 102 s | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Output speedMedian output tokens per second on AA's API runs, with the 5th and 95th percentile when AA prints them. | 67 tokens/s | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Time per taskLower is better. Wall-clock seconds per Intelligence Index task. Runs take from about 15 s to about 33 min, so the axis is log from 1 s to 10,000 s. | 626 s | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Time to first tokenLower is better. Median seconds to the first streamed chunk on AA's API runs, with the 5th and 95th percentile when AA prints them. Reasoning models spend this time thinking. | 102 s | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Reliability | ||||
| Hallucination rateLower is better. AA-Omniscience hallucination rate shows how often the model answers wrongly when it does not know and should decline. | 63.6% | Max effort | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Omniscience accuracyShare of AA-Omniscience knowledge questions answered correctly. | 65.4% | Max effort | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Omniscience indexAA-Omniscience index: correct answers minus wrong answers, declines neutral, -100 to 100. | 43.3 | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| SimpleQA Verified (Epoch)Share of SimpleQA Verified factual questions answered correctly, best scorer, Epoch AI's run. A second factuality source beside AA-Omniscience. | 70.7% | Extra-high effort | Epoch AI | Aug 10, 2026 |
| Knowledge work | ||||
| AA-BriefcaseAA-Briefcase overall Elo for long business deliverables, with AA's 95% interval. | 1,537 | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| AnalystAgent (AA run)AA's AnalystAgent score for analyst workflows. | 48.8% | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| APEX-Agents (maintainers)APEX-Agents pass@1 from the maintainers, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 63.6% | Mercor (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 | |
| GDP-PDF (AA run)Share of GDP-PDF document tasks where every check passes. | 24% | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| GDPval-AAGDPval-AA Elo: AA's run of economically valuable knowledge-work tasks, graded pairwise, with AA's interval. | 1,610 | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| MLCR (AA run)AA's MLCR overall score for long, multi-document reading. | 20.6% | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Vending-Bench 2Vending-Bench 2 final balance of a simulated vending business run by the model, as Epoch AI republishes it. | $4,967 | Max effort | Andon Labs (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Capability beyond the chart | ||||
| AA-LCRAA long-context reasoning accuracy. | 82.3% | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| ALE-BenchALE-Bench performance rating on long optimization contests, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 2,041 | High effort | Sakana AI (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| ARC-AGI-2ARC-AGI-2 score from the ARC Prize maintainers, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 89.2% | Max effort | ARC Prize Foundation (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Chess puzzles (Epoch)Share of chess puzzles solved, Epoch AI's run. | 47% | Max effort | Epoch AI | Oct 13, 2026 |
| CritPt (AA run)Share of CritPt research-level physics problems solved in AA's run. | 28.6% | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| DeepSWEDeepSWE pass@1, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 69.7% | Max effort | Datacurve (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| DTBenchDTBench accuracy, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 98.4% | Max effort | Redwood Research (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| EnterpriseOps-Gym (AA run)AA's EnterpriseOps-Gym score for enterprise operations agents. | 51.1% | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch Capabilities Index: Epoch AI's composite across its benchmark hub, with its confidence interval. | 163 | Claude Fable 5 | Epoch AI | Oct 26, 2026 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (Epoch)Share of FrontierMath Tier 4 research math problems solved, Epoch AI's run. | 90.2% | Max effort | Epoch AI | Jun 9, 2026 |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1 to 3 (Epoch)Share of FrontierMath Tiers 1 to 3 problems solved, Epoch AI's run. | 87.0% | Max effort | Epoch AI | Jun 9, 2026 |
| FrontierSWEFrontierSWE score, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 47.0% | Max effort | FrontierSWE (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| GPQA Diamond (AA run)GPQA Diamond accuracy in AA's run. | 92.6% | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch)GPQA Diamond accuracy, best scorer, Epoch AI's run. | 85.9% | Max effort | Epoch AI | Aug 6, 2026 |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA run)Share of Humanity's Last Exam questions answered correctly in AA's run. | 55.5% | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| IFBench (AA run)Instruction-following accuracy on IFBench in AA's run. | 63.5% | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Intelligence IndexArtificial Analysis Intelligence Index: AA's composite of its own evaluation runs, 0 to 100 points. | 49.6 | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| LMCALMCA score, 0 to 100, as Epoch AI republishes it. Its interval is printed only as a half-width, so it is not drawn. | 60.3 | Max effort | Redwood Research (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Mystery game puzzles (Epoch)Share of mystery game puzzles solved, Epoch AI's run. | 52% | Max effort | Epoch AI | Jul 31, 2026 |
| OTIS Mock AIME (Epoch)Share of OTIS Mock AIME 2024 to 2025 problems solved, Epoch AI's run. | 99.7% | Max effort | Epoch AI | Jun 10, 2026 |
| ProofBenchShare of ProofBench proofs graded correct, from Vals AI as Epoch AI republishes it. | 95% | Max effort | Vals AI (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| SciCode (AA run)SciCode subproblem accuracy in AA's run. | 61.0% | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| tau-Banking (AA run)AA's tau-Banking tool-use score. | 38.1% | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| tau2-Bench (AA run)AA's tau2-Bench tool-use score. | 98.5% | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA run)Share of Terminal-Bench 4.0 tasks solved in AA's own harness. | 42.4% | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| WebDev ArenaWebDev Arena score from human pairwise votes on web builds, with its 95% interval, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 1,628 | High effort | LMArena (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| WeirdML v3, best runWeirdML v3 maximum performance across runs, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 27.9% | Extra-high effort | Håvard Tveit Ihle (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Domains | ||||
| EconomicsArtificial Analysis capability score for economics questions, 0 to 100 points. | 60.4 | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| EngineeringArtificial Analysis capability score for engineering questions, 0 to 100 points. | 53 | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Finance and accountingArtificial Analysis capability score for finance and accounting questions, 0 to 100 points. | 53.8 | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Healthcare and medicalArtificial Analysis capability score for healthcare and medical questions, 0 to 100 points. | 47.2 | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| LegalArtificial Analysis capability score for legal questions, 0 to 100 points. | 58 | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Strategy and operationsArtificial Analysis capability score for strategy and operations questions, 0 to 100 points. | 55.5 | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
Routes, prices and uptime
Where Claude Fable 5 is offered, what each route charges, and how each endpoint is holding up.
Where it is offered
14 of 19 routes GILD tracks offer Claude Fable 5 today, preview included. Read Oct 28, 2026 from each route's own pages.
| Route | Status | Model ID | Limits and lifecycle | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amazon Bedrock | Available | anthropic.claude-fable-5 | us./global. profiles; no in-Region; Active, EOL not sooner than June 9, 2027; tiers: Standard only; context / output 1M / 128K | Amazon Web Services, Models at a glanceAmazon Web Services, Claude Fable 5 |
| Claude Code | Available | claude-fable-5 | By full model name on the Anthropic API, or provider ARN, version or deployment name; aliases resolve per provider | Anthropic |
| Claude on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed) | Available | claude-fable-5 | Claude API model IDs (dated IDs use a hyphen) | Anthropic, Claude Fable 5Anthropic, Claude Models on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed) |
| Claude Platform on AWS | Available | claude-fable-5 | Same ID as the Claude API | Anthropic |
| Cursor | Available | available, hidden by default; Premium plan or higher, API list price | Anysphere (Cursor) | |
| Databricks | Available | databricks-claude-fable-5 | available | Databricks, Databricks-hosted inferenceDatabricks, Detailed list of models supported by Databricks Foundation Model APIs |
| The maker's own API | Available | claude-fable-5 | context / max output 1M / 128K; status per deprecations table | Anthropic, Claude Fable 5Anthropic, Model deprecations |
| GitHub Copilot | Available | not statedpicker label Claude Fable 5 | available (GA) | GitHub |
| GitHub Models | Retired | not applicableservice retired | service retired July 30, 2026 | GitHub, GitHub Models |
| Google Cloud Vertex / Agent Platform (Google managed) | Available | claude-fable-5 (GA) | retirement not sooner than June 8, 2027; input / output 1,000,000 / 128,000 | Google, Anthropic's Claude on Google Cloud modelsGoogle, Anthropic's Claude Fable 5 on Google CloudAnthropic |
| Microsoft Foundry | Available | claude-fable-5 | deployment name defaults to model ID; hosted on Anthropic only; context 1M; no Message Batches API | AnthropicMicrosoft Learn |
| OpenCode | Available | claude-fable-5 | OpenCode Zen gateway, Anthropic Messages endpoint | Anomaly (OpenCode), ModelsOpenCode (Anomaly) |
| OpenRouter | Available | anthropic/claude-fable-5 | context / max completion 1,000,000 / 128,000 | OpenRouter |
| Snowflake Cortex | Preview | claude-fable-5 | Regions: Cross Cloud (Any Region) (private preview); AWS US (Cross-Region) (private preview). Per-model context/output not stated in token table. | Snowflake |
| Windsurf / Devin | Available | claude-5-fable-highclaude-5-fable-lowclaude-5-fable-maxclaude-5-fable-mediumclaude-5-fable-xhigh | available | Cognition (Devin, formerly Windsurf), AI Models |
Not offered on 1 route: Antigravity.
3 routes do not say: Codex, Gemini CLI and Grok Build.
What each of these 4 routes' pages say, with sources
| Route | Status | Model ID | Limits and lifecycle | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antigravity | Not offered | not listed; Gemini CLI serves Gemini models only | ||
| Codex | Not stated | Codex model docs list OpenAI models only | ||
| Gemini CLI | Not stated | Region, tier and limits not stated on the route's pages. | ||
| Grok Build | Not stated | Grok Build pages name only grok-4.7 | xAI (SpaceXSI) |
Prices by route
The lowest standard rate is Claude API, at $10 / $50 per million input and output tokens. US dollars per million tokens, as each route lists them, one row per route and rate plan, cheapest standard rate first after the maker's own; a blended rate states its mix.
| Route | Standard, in / out | Cache read | Other rates | Source, or uptime (1 day / 30 min) and limits |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude APIMakerLowest | $10 / $50 | Anthropic, Oct 26, 2026 | ||
| Artificial Analysis price record | $10 / $50 | $1 | Blended $20, 3 input : 1 output, no cacheBlended $7.70, 7 cache-hit : 2 input : 1 outputCache write $12.50 | Artificial Analysis, Oct 26, 2026 |
Lineup
Anthropic's 14 releases in 4 families, oldest to newest along each tier, with list price and speed. Claude Fable 5 is lit.
CurrentLegacyThis model
Price is the list price per 1M tokens, input / output. Speed is median output tokens per second. Bars share one scale across the lineup. Read between Oct 26, 2026 and Oct 28, 2026.
Claude Haiku
Anthropic's small, fast Claude model family for high-volume, latency-sensitive work.
2 releases
Claude Sonnet
Anthropic's balanced Claude model family.
4 releases
Claude Opus
Anthropic's high-capability Claude model family.
6 releases
- 4.5Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed58.8 tok/s
- 4.6Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed47.7 tok/s
- 4.7Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed54.7 tok/s
- 4.8Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed65.9 tok/s
- 5Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed53.3 tok/s
- 5.5Current. In 9 products we coverPrice$4 / $20Speed98.4 tok/s
Claude Fable
Anthropic's Claude family for demanding reasoning and long-horizon agentic work.
2 releases
- This page5Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$10 / $50Speed70.2 tok/s
- 5.1Current. In 8 products we coverPrice$10 / $50Speed66.4 tok/s
Products
We cover 4 products that offer Claude Fable 5 today: 3 subscriptions and 1 API.
Through a subscription
- OpenCode+27 PositiveOpen-source, MIT-licensed coding agent that edits code and runs commands from a terminal UI, desktop app, web client, or editor extension.
- Claude Code+75 Strong positiveAnthropic's agentic coding product for terminal and IDE workflows.
- Cursor+11 MixedAI coding agent and code editor for writing, reviewing, and shipping software, with agents in the editor, the terminal, and the cloud.
Through an API
Comparisons
GILD comparisons that name Claude Fable 5, then those of the clouds and APIs that serve it.
- Amazon Bedrock vs Claude API: Buying Claude Through AWS or From AnthropicCompares routes that serve Claude Fable 5
- Amazon Bedrock vs Microsoft Foundry: Which Cloud AI Platform Fits Your Stack?Compares routes that serve Claude Fable 5
- Claude API vs Gemini API: Which Model Platform Fits Your Workloads?Compares routes that serve Claude Fable 5
- Claude API vs OpenAI API: Top Scores or Lower Cost per Task?Compares routes that serve Claude Fable 5
- DeepSeek API vs Claude API: Price per Task or Controls and Residency?Compares routes that serve Claude Fable 5
- DeepSeek API vs OpenRouter: Buy DeepSeek From DeepSeek, or From Another Host?Compares routes that serve Claude Fable 5
- Gemini API vs Amazon Bedrock: One Model Family or a Model Marketplace?Compares routes that serve Claude Fable 5
- Gemini API vs Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform: Which Route to Gemini?Compares routes that serve Claude Fable 5
- Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform vs Microsoft Foundry: Google Cloud or Azure for Models and AgentsCompares routes that serve Claude Fable 5
- LiteLLM vs OpenRouter: Run Your Own Gateway or Rent One?Compares routes that serve Claude Fable 5
- OpenRouter vs Portkey: Rent Model Access or Run a Governed Gateway?Compares routes that serve Claude Fable 5
- Together AI vs OpenRouter: One Open-Model Host or a Router Across HostsCompares routes that serve Claude Fable 5
What practitioners report
Strongest on Quality and reasoning, weakest on Cost.
Each figure is the share of accounts naming Claude Fable 5 that speak well of it on that axis. An axis is scored once praise and concerns are both on record from at least five accounts by three authors. An account from the maker, a company that sells or serves the model, or the maker's expert program is listed and counts toward no figure.
| Axis | Favorable | Accounts |
|---|---|---|
| Quality and reasoningWhether its answers and code are right on the author's own task: reasoning, accuracy, instruction following, and consistency. | 68% | 13 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors |
| Tool use and structured outputWhether it calls tools correctly, returns valid structured output, and keeps agent loops on track. | 57% | 4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors |
| Long contextHow it holds up over long documents, large codebases, long sessions, and many images or PDFs. | 33% | 2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors |
| Developer experienceHow it is to build with: prompting, steering, effort settings, and support across SDKs and providers. | 25% | 3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors |
| CostWhat the work costs: price per task, token use, and what caching and batch save. | 8% | 1 favorable, 11 not, 12 authors |
| SpeedResponse time, time to first token, and throughput. | 57% | 4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors |
| ReliabilityWhether requests keep succeeding: overloaded errors, outages, rate limits, and changes that broke what worked. | 22% | 2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors |
Every model on these seven axes
| Axis | Claude Fable 5 | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Claude Opus 5.5 | Claude Fable 5.1 | Claude Opus 5 | Claude Sonnet 5 | Claude Opus 4.8 | Claude Opus 4.7 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | GPT-6.1 Terra | GPT-6.1 Sol | GPT-6 Luna | GPT-6 Astra | GPT-5.6 Sol | GPT-5.6 Terra | GPT-5.6 Luna | GPT-5.5 | GPT-5.4 | gpt-oss-120b | GPT-6 Sol | GPT-5.3-Codex | Gemini 4 Argon | Gemini 3.8 Flash | Gemma 4 31B | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Gemini 3.6 Flash | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Kimi K3.1 Pro | Kimi K3 | Kimi K2.7 Code | Mistral Large 4 | Mistral Medium 3.5 | Grok 4.7 | Grok 4.6 | Grok 4.5 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Mercury 3 | GLM-5.3-Flash | GLM-5.3 | GLM-5.2 | Muse Spark Open | Muse Wonder | Muse Spark 1.3 | Llama 4 Scout | Llama 4 Maverick | Qwen3.8 27B | Qwen3.8 Max | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Ling 3.1 Flash | Step 5 Preview |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality and reasoning | 68%13 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors | 73%19 favorable, 7 not, 26 authors | 64%14 favorable, 8 not, 22 authors | 68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors | 54%15 favorable, 13 not, 28 authors | 50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors | 56%9 favorable, 7 not, 16 authors | 68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors | 57%12 favorable, 9 not, 21 authors | 67%12 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors | 70%19 favorable, 8 not, 27 authors | 62%13 favorable, 8 not, 20 authors | 58%14 favorable, 10 not, 24 authors | 69%11 favorable, 5 not, 16 authors | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 55%12 favorable, 10 not, 22 authors | 55%16 favorable, 13 not, 29 authors | 44%12 favorable, 15 not, 26 authors | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors | 38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | 33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors | 33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors | 58%22 favorable, 16 not, 38 authors | 31%10 favorable, 22 not, 32 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | 63%22 favorable, 13 not, 35 authors | 56%27 favorable, 21 not, 45 authors | 80%24 favorable, 6 not, 28 authors | 56%20 favorable, 16 not, 36 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | 61%25 favorable, 16 not, 40 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | 59%20 favorable, 14 not, 32 authors | Only praise on record3 favorable, 0 not, 3 authors | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | 58%11 favorable, 8 not, 18 authors | 36%5 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors | 43%16 favorable, 21 not, 36 authors | 86%6 favorable, 1 not, 7 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 62%13 favorable, 8 not, 21 authors | 86%18 favorable, 3 not, 21 authors | 67%14 favorable, 7 not, 21 authors | 76%47 favorable, 15 not, 61 authors | 71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | Only praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors | 53%8 favorable, 7 not, 15 authors | 44%8 favorable, 10 not, 17 authors | 71%24 favorable, 10 not, 34 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors |
| Tool use and structured output | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 67%6 favorable, 3 not, 9 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | 46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors | 30%3 favorable, 7 not, 10 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | 70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | 33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors | 70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors | 43%3 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | 40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors | 62%8 favorable, 5 not, 13 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | 27%4 favorable, 11 not, 15 authors | 56%5 favorable, 4 not, 9 authors | No accounts yet | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 47%7 favorable, 8 not, 15 authors | 67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors | 54%7 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 59%10 favorable, 7 not, 17 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | 38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors | 38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors | Only praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors | 80%8 favorable, 2 not, 10 authors | 33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 2 not, 3 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | 46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author |
| Long context | 33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 80%8 favorable, 2 not, 10 authors | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors | 67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | 60%6 favorable, 4 not, 10 authors | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors | 71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors | 64%7 favorable, 4 not, 11 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | 40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | 27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors | No accounts yet | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | 44%7 favorable, 9 not, 16 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | 58%7 favorable, 5 not, 12 authors | No accounts yet | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | No accounts yet | 42%5 favorable, 7 not, 12 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | 40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | No accounts yet | 40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 75%6 favorable, 2 not, 8 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet |
| Developer experience | 25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors | 38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors | 50%7 favorable, 7 not, 14 authors | 25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | 53%10 favorable, 9 not, 19 authors | 29%4 favorable, 10 not, 14 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors | 67%8 favorable, 4 not, 12 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 2 not, 4 authors | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | 27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authors | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 41%7 favorable, 10 not, 17 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | 14%1 favorable, 6 not, 7 authors | 25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors | No accounts yet | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors | 39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors | 40%8 favorable, 12 not, 20 authors | No accounts yet | 35%8 favorable, 15 not, 23 authors | No accounts yet | 9%1 favorable, 10 not, 11 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 13%2 favorable, 14 not, 16 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authors | 25%5 favorable, 15 not, 20 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors | 11%1 favorable, 8 not, 9 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors | 33%5 favorable, 10 not, 15 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 6 not, 6 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | No accounts yet |
| Cost | 8%1 favorable, 11 not, 12 authors | 69%20 favorable, 9 not, 29 authors | 45%10 favorable, 12 not, 22 authors | 56%15 favorable, 12 not, 27 authors | 20%4 favorable, 16 not, 20 authors | 43%3 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors | 39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authors | 40%6 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors | 50%7 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors | 50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors | 33%7 favorable, 14 not, 20 authors | 53%8 favorable, 7 not, 15 authors | 29%4 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors | 38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors | 80%8 favorable, 2 not, 9 authors | 74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 authors | 79%22 favorable, 6 not, 26 authors | 29%7 favorable, 17 not, 23 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 55%12 favorable, 10 not, 21 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 35%7 favorable, 13 not, 20 authors | 58%14 favorable, 10 not, 23 authors | Only praise on record7 favorable, 0 not, 7 authors | 50%8 favorable, 8 not, 16 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 66%25 favorable, 13 not, 37 authors | Only praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors | 40%10 favorable, 15 not, 25 authors | 71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | 27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 8 not, 8 authors | 19%5 favorable, 21 not, 26 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | Only praise on record4 favorable, 0 not, 4 authors | 80%12 favorable, 3 not, 15 authors | 50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors | 76%16 favorable, 5 not, 21 authors | 35%8 favorable, 15 not, 23 authors | 71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 2 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Only praise on record3 favorable, 0 not, 3 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author |
| Speed | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 authors | 88%14 favorable, 2 not, 16 authors | 46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors | 44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors | 31%4 favorable, 9 not, 13 authors | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | 36%4 favorable, 7 not, 11 authors | 73%8 favorable, 3 not, 11 authors | 78%7 favorable, 2 not, 9 authors | 75%6 favorable, 2 not, 8 authors | 83%5 favorable, 1 not, 5 authors | 37%7 favorable, 12 not, 19 authors | 45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors | 41%7 favorable, 10 not, 17 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | 80%4 favorable, 1 not, 5 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | No accounts yet | 85%23 favorable, 4 not, 27 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | 45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors | 61%19 favorable, 12 not, 31 authors | 53%10 favorable, 9 not, 17 authors | 35%6 favorable, 11 not, 16 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 68%21 favorable, 10 not, 30 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 21%4 favorable, 15 not, 19 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | No accounts yet | 21%3 favorable, 11 not, 14 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | 29%5 favorable, 12 not, 17 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 2 not, 3 authors | Only praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors | 44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors | 65%13 favorable, 7 not, 20 authors | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors | 20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | No accounts yet | 33%7 favorable, 14 not, 21 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author |
| Reliability | 22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | 18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors | 13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors | 9%1 favorable, 10 not, 11 authors | 13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 17%2 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors | 18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | 20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authors | 38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors | 14%2 favorable, 12 not, 14 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors | 5%1 favorable, 18 not, 19 authors | 15%3 favorable, 17 not, 20 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors | 14%3 favorable, 19 not, 22 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 42%5 favorable, 7 not, 12 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | 8%1 favorable, 12 not, 13 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | 38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | 22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 33%2 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author |
The 56 accounts behind Claude Fable 5's figures
GILD searched Hacker News, GitHub, Reddit, X, Artificial Analysis, Vals AI and the web for accounts that name Claude Fable 5.
Quality and reasoning 68%
- Favorable
Both in planning and direct execution on complex changes across code and infra.
Comment on: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1. bredren, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 1, 2026. Fable 5 in interactive sessions with custom tools and skills, against Opus 5.
- Favorable
the previous Fable 5 I had access to for just 3 days was fantastic
Comment on: Fable 5 is Back. PeterStuer, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 2, 2026. Fable 5 during its first three days of access.
- Favorable
My experiences with Fable thus far have been far from 'mid-tier'.
Comment on: Claude Fable 5: mid-tier results on coding tasks. PeterStuer, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 12, 2026. Fable 5 in normal development and debugging.
- Favorable
Fable 5 still wins on detail with no visible errors, but it's close.
Comment on: Gemini 3.6 Flash, 3.5 Flash-Lite, and 3.5 Flash Cyber. ianberdin, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 21, 2026. Fable 5 against Gemini 3.6 Flash on a 3D MacBook SVG benchmark.
- Favorable
I write a lot of Rust and Lean, Fable 5 is in my experience better at both.
Comment on: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1. rot256, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 1, 2026. Fable 5 on Rust and Lean.
- Unfavorable
Fable 5 was worse than Opus 5 in almost every category
Comment on: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1. petreradu, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 2, 2026. Fable 5 against Opus 5 on Anthropic's published evals.
- Unfavorable
Opus 5 is better than Fable 5 except for creative programming work (like graphics).
Comment on: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1. rfgplk, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 1, 2026. Fable 5 against Opus 5 for programming.
- Favorable
it's not as smart as Fable and I have to constantly challenge and correct its unfounded assumptions
Comment on: Qwen 3.8 27B is excellent, but it defaults to overthinking things. matheusmoreira, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 17, 2026. Fable 5 against Opus 4.8, Opus 5 and Sol.
- Unfavorable
Fable 5 spending six days debugging a deadlock because it didn't think to add any observability
Comment on: Coding expertise is going to collapse from AI reliance. cameronh90, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 25, 2026. Fable 5 debugging a deadlock.
- Favorable
it just produces much more complete work in one shot reliably
Comment on: Why I prefer Opus 5 to Fable 5. tilleryj, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 3, 2026. Fable 5 against Opus 4.8 and Opus 5.
- Favorable
I tried it with Fable 5 High just now and I was very impressed with the output.
Comment on: Pareto Front. Whitespace, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 6, 2026. Fable 5 High on a one-shot task.
- Favorable
Try pointing Fable 5 to almost any CS paper - it can reproduce results in mere hours
Comment on: I think you might be fooling yourself with AI. dilyevsky, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 23, 2026. Fable 5 building a TCP simulator to reproduce BBR paper results.
- Favorable
nothing one-shots a prototype better than Fable 5
Comment on: Small Models Have Arrived. jermaustin1, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 27, 2026. Fable 5 building game prototypes.
- Unfavorable
I just haven't seen it provide noticeably better results compared to Opus
Comment on: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1. eis, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 1, 2026. Fable 5 against Opus 5 on a 20x Max plan.
- Favorable
is amongst the leading models in intelligence
Claude Fable 5 (max with Opus 4.8 fallback) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) on the Artificial Analysis model page.
- Favorable
It resets the top of the leaderboard, taking #1 on the Vals Index (75.15%) and the Vals Multimodal Index (74.15%).
Claude Fable 5 Benchmarks, Cost and Capabilities | Vals AI. Vals AI, independent model benchmark publisher, self-described, Jun 9, 2026. Claude Fable 5 at max compute effort with Claude Opus 4.8 as refusal fallback, across the Vals AI suite.
- Unfavorable
Fable 5 with Claude Code landed mid-table on our leaderboard: 59.8% FuncPass and just 19.0% SecPass
Claude Fable 5: Mythos-grade hype, record cheating, and a few hall-of-fame entries. Luca Compagna, Principal Security Researcher at Endor Labs, Jun 10, 2026. Claude Fable 5 with Claude Code on 200 vulnerability-fixing tasks in Endor Labs' Agent Security League.
- Favorable
We could give Fable 5 vague prompts and still get complete projects rather than prototype shells.
Fable 5 review: Coding tasks and code review results. Juan Pablo Flores and Gowtham Kishore Vijay, CodeRabbit blog authors, self-described, Jun 9, 2026. Fable 5 on CodeRabbit's 105-EP code review benchmark and coding task benchmark.
- Favorable
Claude Fable 5 is excellent at some very specific kinds of work: visual document formatting, exhaustive technical investigation
My Honest Review of Claude Fable 5. Claire Vo, founder and CEO of ChatPRD, Jun 11, 2026. Claude Fable 5 at extra-high effort across document formatting, technical writing, frontend design, implementation and multi-agent work.
- Favorable
Fable 5 was an absolute beast on this benchmark. It produced the best solution overall
Fable 5 vs. GPT-5.6 Sol on an NP-Hard Problem: Does /goal Help?. Charles Azam, personal blog author, self-described, Jul 17, 2026. Claude Fable 5 in Claude Code against GPT-5.6 Sol in Codex on the KIRO fiber-network optimization problem, with and without /goal.
- Unfavorable
engaged with the nonsense instead of rejecting it
[MODEL] Measurable quality regression in Claude generation 5 (Fable 5 / Opus 5 / Sonnet 5): worse nonsense detection, ~2x verbosity, under-disclosed model fallback (Fable 5 → Opus 4.8) , reproducible measurements. KeilerHirsch, GitHub issue author, self-described, Aug 3, 2026. Fable 5 (claude-fable-5) and other Claude generation 5 models on BullshitBench nonsense prompts.
Tool use and structured output 57%
- Favorable
Fable 5 takes the top spot (0.6579), setting a new performance record
Comment on: Handwritten-edit benchmark: Fable 5 is #1, Opus 4.8 regresses 55% on miscounting. svcrunch, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 23, 2026. Fable 5 on the Little Dorrit handwritten-edit benchmark.
- Favorable
I decided to only use Opus 5 if I'm actually talking to Fable 5 that's orchestrating it
Comment on: Opus 5.0 drives incoherence into the stratosphere. mihaelm, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 19, 2026. Fable 5 orchestrating Opus 5.
- Unfavorable
The AskUserQuestion dialog appears. The long text never renders anywhere.
[Bug] Fable 5 writes user-facing output into hidden thinking instead of a text block , same as #66112, fixed for Opus but still reproduces on Fable. tobihagemann, GitHub issue author, self-described, Jul 4, 2026. Fable 5 (claude-fable-5) in Claude Code with the AskUserQuestion tool.
- Unfavorable
subagents demonstrably complete their work (hundreds of files written to the workspace), but their results are never reconciled back to the parent session
[BUG] claude-fable-5 (xhigh): parent session permanently wedges , parallel subagent results never reconcile, event stream goes silent (repro 3x, 0.3.197 & 0.3.251). fjnoyp, GitHub issue author, self-described, Aug 31, 2026. claude-fable-5 (Fable 5) at xhigh in headless Agent SDK sessions with parallel subagents.
- Unfavorable
Claude Fable 5 defaults to spawning far too many agents at once even for Claude Max 20x users.
[Bug] Parallel agent spawning causes excessive token consumption before crashing or hitting limits. DrAlexHarrison, GitHub issue author, self-described, Jun 11, 2026. Claude Fable 5 on two Claude Max 20x accounts in Claude Code.
- Favorable
I have Fable 5 xhigh drive the whole thing: it gets Codex CLI installed in its environment with an API key, and it's instructed to delegate ~everything to Codex and review its work
Comment on: Managing AI Coding Costs at Scale. tfehring, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 8, 2026. Fable 5 xhigh driving Codex CLI agents at a startup.
- Favorable
i reserve Fable 5/Sol XHigh for "main thread" orchestration
Comment on: Managing AI Coding Costs at Scale. extr, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 7, 2026. Fable 5 and Sol XHigh as main-thread orchestrators.
Long context 33%
- Favorable
both Opus 4.8 and Fable 5 don't seem to get lost with that much context
Comment on: OpenAI reduces Codex Model Context Size from 372k to 272k. jwitthuhn, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 19, 2026. Fable 5 and Opus 4.8 on prompts using 300k to 400k tokens.
- Favorable
you can already see it with GPT-5.6 and Fable-5, to delegate complex enough tasks that will take more than 24 hours to get done and they will not lose track
Comment on: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731. FernandoTN, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 7, 2026. GPT-5.6 and Fable 5 on long-horizon tasks.
- Unfavorable
why Opus 5 and Fable 5 seem to forget so much when I give it rapid fire tasks
Comment on: Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?. bradgessler, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 14, 2026. Opus 5 and Fable 5 on rapid-fire UI review tasks.
- Unfavorable
Sometimes they can't even remember the correct workflow even if they're merely an orchestrator
Comment on: Why Software Factories Fail (or: harness engineering is not enough). chmod775, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 24, 2026. Fable 5 and Opus 4.8 as orchestrators at around 350k to 450k tokens.
- Unfavorable
The result is that the advisor effectively never works in real sessions on Fable 5
Advisor tool returns "unavailable" on claude-fable-5 whenever transcript exceeds ~100K tokens. mikeberlinworkshop, GitHub issue author, self-described, Jun 11, 2026. claude-fable-5 (Fable 5) as request and advisor model in Claude Code.
- Unfavorable
Claude starts to forget the terse output style by the middle of the context window
Comment on: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1. jakevoytko, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 1, 2026. Opus and Fable 5 with a terse output style over long-running sessions.
Developer experience 25%
- Unfavorable
I run into fallback to Opus 4.8 all the time, and I am not even doing "security Research", just normal development and debugging.
Comment on: Claude Fable 5: mid-tier results on coding tasks. PeterStuer, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 12, 2026. Fable 5 in normal development and debugging.
- Unfavorable
I prefer their type of prose across the board to what Opus 5 and Fable 5 kept outputting
Comment on: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1. KronisLV, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 1, 2026. Opus 5 and Fable 5 prose.
- Unfavorable
Starting with Fable 5, if it goes off the rails, it is more difficult to correct it
Comment on: The new rules of context engineering for Claude 5 generation models. kloud, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 26, 2026. Fable 5 with a light CLAUDE.md.
- Unfavorable
Opus 5/Fable 5 outright ignored it.
Comment on: Claude Opus 5.5. rfgplk, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 22, 2026. Opus 5 and Fable 5 given a no-comments instruction.
- Favorable
I liked Fable 5, as it didn't gabble like Opus did. It was good at clarity & conciseness.
Comment on: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1. twhitmore, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 3, 2026. Fable 5 against Opus.
- Unfavorable
Fable 5 gives me policy violation errors at the moment.
Comment on: Claude Fable 5. arkwin, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 9, 2026. Fable 5 on vulnerability research, as a Cyber Verification Program member.
- Unfavorable
it generated 130M tokens, which is somewhat verbose in comparison to the median of 87M
Claude Fable 5 (max with Opus 4.8 fallback) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) on the Artificial Analysis model page.
- Unfavorable
The API showed a high rate of refusals, especially on bio and cyber-related questions.
Claude Fable 5 Benchmarks, Cost and Capabilities | Vals AI. Vals AI, independent model benchmark publisher, self-described, Jun 9, 2026. Claude Fable 5 at max compute effort with Claude Opus 4.8 as refusal fallback, across the Vals AI suite.
- Favorable
Fable 5 engaged with all 200 security relevant coding tasks without a single content-policy block.
Claude Fable 5: Mythos-grade hype, record cheating, and a few hall-of-fame entries. Luca Compagna, Principal Security Researcher at Endor Labs, Jun 10, 2026. Claude Fable 5 with Claude Code on 200 vulnerability-fixing tasks in Endor Labs' Agent Security League.
- Favorable
It does not spend much time narrating what it is about to do.
Fable 5 review: Coding tasks and code review results. Juan Pablo Flores and Gowtham Kishore Vijay, CodeRabbit blog authors, self-described, Jun 9, 2026. Fable 5 on CodeRabbit's 105-EP code review benchmark and coding task benchmark.
- Unfavorable
Sometimes it produces cautious, overbuilt output that is harder to use than the simpler alternatives.
My Honest Review of Claude Fable 5. Claire Vo, founder and CEO of ChatPRD, Jun 11, 2026. Claude Fable 5 at extra-high effort across document formatting, technical writing, frontend design, implementation and multi-agent work.
- Unfavorable
The forensic work itself was eventually excellent
Fable 5 model behavior: 16 min of silent tool calls, then AskUserQuestion about never-shared findings during incident response. rasatpetabit, GitHub issue author, self-described, Jun 10, 2026. Claude Code running Fable 5 (claude-fable-5) in an incident-response session.
- Unfavorable
It keeps triggering me thinking it's a biological weapon.
[Bug] Fable 5 safeguards overly broad, flagging routine coding tasks. 0x524c, GitHub issue author, self-described, Jul 9, 2026. Fable 5 in Claude Code on a simple coding project.
- Unfavorable
data retention mode 'default' is not available for this model
Claude Fable 5 on Bedrock returns raw 400 (data retention mode 'default' not available). sharon-wang, GitHub issue author, self-described, Jul 27, 2026. Claude Fable 5 on Amazon Bedrock through Posit Assistant.
Cost 8%
- Unfavorable
for $0.16, about a fifth of Fable's price
Comment on: Gemini 3.6 Flash, 3.5 Flash-Lite, and 3.5 Flash Cyber. ianberdin, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 21, 2026. Fable 5 against Gemini 3.6 Flash on a 3D MacBook SVG benchmark.
- Unfavorable
I loved Fable 5 and 5.1, but they were so expensive.
Comment on: Getting the most out of Opus 5.5 in Claude and Claude Code. jackchillemi, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 5, 2026. Fable 5 and 5.1 coordinating Opus subagents.
- Unfavorable
Fable 5 being so expensive that it needs to be rationed
Comment on: AI handles incidents, engineers lose touch with their systems. SyneRyder, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 5, 2026. Fable 5 usage by developers.
- Unfavorable
at work I used $1000 in credit and ran out my $200 plan for the entire month writing 4 much smaller projects with Fable 5 Max
Comment on: OpenAI begins rolling out GPT-6 Astra. zamadatix, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 3, 2026. Fable 5 Max on four small work projects.
- Unfavorable
Cost/performance is a different story.
Comment on: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1. rot256, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 1, 2026. Fable 5 on Rust and Lean.
- Unfavorable
while consuming twice the tokens
Comment on: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1. petreradu, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 2, 2026. Fable 5 against Opus 5 on Anthropic's published evals.
- Favorable
(Fable 5 did it in 245k for $0.95)
Comment on: Claude Opus 5. eli, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 24, 2026. Fable 5 against Opus 4.8 and Opus 5 on a game-engine build benchmark.
- Unfavorable
Fable 5 might be slightly better but the token cost isn't worth it.
Comment on: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1. rfgplk, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 1, 2026. Fable 5 against Opus 5 for programming.
- Unfavorable
I am not sure if Fable is worth it, at least with version 5 vs Opus 5.
Comment on: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1. eis, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 1, 2026. Fable 5 against Opus 5 on a 20x Max plan.
- Unfavorable
but particularly expensive when comparing to other models of similar price
Claude Fable 5 (max with Opus 4.8 fallback) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) on the Artificial Analysis model page.
- Unfavorable
it also makes it expensive and slower in agent workflows that do not have strong stop rules
Fable 5 review: Coding tasks and code review results. Juan Pablo Flores and Gowtham Kishore Vijay, CodeRabbit blog authors, self-described, Jun 9, 2026. Fable 5 on CodeRabbit's 105-EP code review benchmark and coding task benchmark.
- Unfavorable
For Claude Fable 5, the tokens alone ran $16.99 to $25.05, about 30-40% of each run's total.
$100 AI Music Video: Claude Fable 5 vs. GPT-5.6 Sol. TryAI, company blog, self-described, Jul 16, 2026. Claude Fable 5 directing a music video in TryAI's open-source agent harness at $25 and $100 budgets.
- Unfavorable
Claude spawned 10 agents who did a bunch of reads then crashed, costing me a few million tokens of usage.
[Bug] Parallel agent spawning causes excessive token consumption before crashing or hitting limits. DrAlexHarrison, GitHub issue author, self-described, Jun 11, 2026. Claude Fable 5 on two Claude Max 20x accounts in Claude Code.
Speed 57%
- Favorable
Only Fable 5 seems to be smart enough to just know everything it needs to immediately start working
Comment on: Qwen 3.8 27B is excellent, but it defaults to overthinking things. matheusmoreira, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 17, 2026. Fable 5 against Opus 4.8, Opus 5 and Sol.
- Unfavorable
I was getting the same results as Fable, just faster and cheaper
Comment on: Why I prefer Opus 5 to Fable 5. tilleryj, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 3, 2026. Fable 5 against Opus 4.8 and Opus 5.
- Favorable
It took 7 minutes and one turn.
Comment on: Pareto Front. Whitespace, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 6, 2026. Fable 5 High on a one-shot task.
- Favorable
It took it ~4 hours to bang out initial version
Comment on: I think you might be fooling yourself with AI. dilyevsky, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 23, 2026. Fable 5 building a TCP simulator to reproduce BBR paper results.
- Favorable
I can have a prototype built in 30 minutes
Comment on: Small Models Have Arrived. jermaustin1, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 27, 2026. Fable 5 building game prototypes.
- Unfavorable
At 67 tokens per second, Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) is slower than average (83)
Claude Fable 5 (max with Opus 4.8 fallback) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) on the Artificial Analysis model page.
- Unfavorable
Fable 5's extended thinking caused more per-instance timeouts than any model-and-harness combination we have ever tested
Claude Fable 5: Mythos-grade hype, record cheating, and a few hall-of-fame entries. Luca Compagna, Principal Security Researcher at Endor Labs, Jun 10, 2026. Claude Fable 5 with Claude Code on 200 vulnerability-fixing tasks in Endor Labs' Agent Security League.
- Unfavorable
In our coding task benchmark, Fable 5 often kept working until the harness cut it off.
Fable 5 review: Coding tasks and code review results. Juan Pablo Flores and Gowtham Kishore Vijay, CodeRabbit blog authors, self-described, Jun 9, 2026. Fable 5 on CodeRabbit's 105-EP code review benchmark and coding task benchmark.
Reliability 22%
- Favorable
By switching to Fable 5, it seems to be working still.
Comment on: Claude: Elevated errors across all models – Resolved. devy, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 29, 2026. Fable 5 during an Opus 5 error spike.
- Favorable
Fable 5 is mid refactor on one of my projects, no api error for me.
Comment on: Tell HN: Claude Code Is Down. brumbelow, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 13, 2026. Fable 5 mid refactor during a Claude Code outage.
- Unfavorable
Fable 5 seems like it got nerfed when 5.1 came out.
Comment on: Livenerf: Has Opus 5.5 been nerfed yet?. apt-apt-apt-apt, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 30, 2026. Fable 5 after the Fable 5.1 release.
- Unfavorable
I keep getting this error mid agent loop: "Error: claude-fable-5 is temporarily unavailable"
Comment on: Fable 5 is Back. throwaw12, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 1, 2026. claude-fable-5 (Fable 5) in an agent loop after its return on July 1.
- Unfavorable
now shows "Elevated errors across Fable 5"
Comment on: Ask HN: Did Fable disappear from your Claude usage and requires credits now?. cornellwright, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 17, 2026. Fable 5 in Claude plans on July 17.
- Unfavorable
I would run out of weekly quota in 2 days, whereas Opus 4.8 would last the entire week
Comment on: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1. indemnity, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 2, 2026. Fable 5 and Opus 5 on a Claude Max 20x plan.
- Unfavorable
Measured five different ways, August delivered dramatically fewer thinking tokens than July.
X post by @Lon. Lon, X user, self-described, Sep 20, 2026. Fable 5 on a subscription plan, July against August.
- Unfavorable
the downgrade then **persists silently for hundreds of turns**
Fable 5 safeguard flag silently reroutes sessions to Opus 4.8 for hundreds of turns with no persistent indicator. NellInc, GitHub issue author, self-described, Jul 18, 2026. Fable 5 sessions in Claude Code after a safeguard flag.
- Unfavorable
A Claude Code session configured for **Fable 5** (effort xHigh) is being served by a model that self-identifies as **Haiku 4.5**
Model routing mismatch: session set to Fable 5 (xHigh), served model self-identifies as Haiku 4.5. Tor-Grimsson, GitHub issue author, self-described, Aug 27, 2026. Claude Code session set to Fable 5 at xHigh effort.