Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 22 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

83.68/100
Margin
17.4pts
← winning
66.27/100
2 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #2 (Supported); Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #27 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) share 22 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 12 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 16 to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive).

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
22
Claude Fable 5 only
12
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
16
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Claude Fable 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 22 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Claude Fable 5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 83.68 to 66.27. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Fable 5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 89.2 against 78.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Pro, 80% to 64.3%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Claude Fable 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive). That is roughly 2.0x on output cost alone. Claude Fable 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 1M for Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive).

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude Fable 5 and Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
CategoryClaude Fable 5ΔClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
CodingClaude Fable 589.2Margin← 10.6Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6
AgenticClaude Fable 584.6Margin← 9.5Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1
MultimodalClaude Fable 557.9Margin→ 7.2Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1
ReasoningClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8
KnowledgeClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Fable 5B · Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

  1. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 80%B 64.3%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 15.7
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Fable 5 scored 80%; Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 64.3%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 84.3%B 69.4%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 14.9
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Fable 5 scored 84.3%; Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 69.4%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.

  3. OfficeQA Pro

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 57.9%B 43.6%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 14.3
    OfficeQA Pro: Claude Fable 5 scored 57.9%; Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 43.6%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.

  4. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 95%B 87.6%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 7.4
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Fable 5 scored 95%; Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 87.6%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.

  5. OSWorld-Verified

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 85%B 78%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 7
    OSWorld-Verified: Claude Fable 5 scored 85%; Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 78%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Fable 5Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Fable 5$10 input / $50 outputClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 outputClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Fable 5Not availableClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Fable 5Not availableClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Fable 51M+Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1MClaude Fable 5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Fable 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 84.3%69.4%Claude Fable 5 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 85%78%Claude Fable 5 leads
GDPval-AASource 17481495Claude Fable 5 leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 52.8%44.4%Claude Fable 5 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 98.5%88.6%Claude Fable 5 leads
GDPval-AASource 62.4%49.8%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA BriefcaseSource 1574—Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 48.6%—Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 51.1%—Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 93.6%—Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 26.8%—Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource 62.9%—Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source 84.6%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource —79.3%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —77.3%Not comparable
CyberGymSource —73.1%Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —18.2%Not comparable
JobBenchSource —45.9%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —46.7%Not comparable
CodingClaude Fable 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 95%87.6%Claude Fable 5 leads
SWE-bench ProSource 80%64.3%Claude Fable 5 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 53.5%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 84.3%69.4%Claude Fable 5 leads
cursorBench31Source 70.6%—Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 70.5%—Not comparable
VulcanBench v3Source 87.0%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 76.5%73.6%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 60.2%54.5%Claude Fable 5 leads
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Result
AA-LCRSource 70.0%70.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
CritPtSource 28.6%12.0%Claude Fable 5 leads
MRCR v2 128K-256KSource —59.2%Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source —75.8%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 59.9%53.5%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.6%91.4%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-HLESource 53.3%39.6%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 40.2%26.2%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 61.4%45.8%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 54.9%36.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
GPQASource —94.2%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —94.2%Not comparable
HLESource —54.7%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource —46.9%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Result
FrontierMath (legacy)Source —43.8%Not comparable
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Result
Blueprint-Bench 2Source 38.6%—Not comparable
OfficeQA ProSource 57.9%43.6%Claude Fable 5 leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13321325Claude Fable 5 leads
CharXivSource —91%Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource —82.1%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —78.8%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Result
AA-IFBenchSource 63.5%58.6%Claude Fable 5 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)?

Claude Fable 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 83.68 to 66.27. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Pro, where the scores are 80% and 64.3%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5 or Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)?

Claude Fable 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 78.6. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)?

Claude Fable 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.6 versus 75.1. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.1 versus 57.9. Inside this category, OfficeQA Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.