Coding
Like-for-like- Claude Fable 5
- 89.2
- Claude Opus 5
- 89.5
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Opus 5
Updated August 22, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Claude Opus 5 has the higher public score estimate, 82.72 versus 82.7, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
7 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Claude Opus 5
Claude Opus 5 leads on the same 2 weighted benchmark rows.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Claude Opus 5
Claude Opus 5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Claude Opus 5
Claude Opus 5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Claude Opus 5
Claude Opus 5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
5 Claude Fable 5 only
7 Shared
56 Claude Opus 5 only
- Shared results
- 7
- Claude Fable 5 only
- 5
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 56
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Multimodal
Like-for-like- Claude Fable 5
- 57.9
- Claude Opus 5
- 66.9
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Claude Opus 5 leads
Agentic
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- 84.6
- Claude Opus 5
- 90.8
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not measured
- Claude Opus 5
- 90.4
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not measured
- Claude Opus 5
- 64.7
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not measured
- Claude Opus 5
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not measured
- Claude Opus 5
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not measured
- Claude Opus 5
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Fable 5 | Claude Opus 5 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 89.2 | 89.5 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Multimodal | 57.9 | 66.9 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Agentic | 84.6 | 90.8 | Not comparable2 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | 90.4 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | 64.7 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
OfficeQA Pro
Multimodal
Claude Fable 5: 57.9%Claude Opus 5: 66.9%Normalized gap 9.0Claude Fable 5 source Claude Opus 5 sourceSWE-bench Verified
Coding
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude Fable 5
- $0.035
- Fits in one request
- Claude Opus 5
- $0.0175
- Fits in one request
Claude Opus 5 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Fable 5
- $0.65
- Fits in one request
- Claude Opus 5
- $0.325
- Fits in one request
Claude Opus 5 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Fable 5
- $0.9
- Fits in one request
- Claude Opus 5
- $0.45
- Fits in one request
Claude Opus 5 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Fable 5Claude Opus 5
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Fable 5
Claude Opus 5
API model ID
Claude Fable 5
claude-fable-5
Anthropic model overviewClaude Opus 5
claude-opus-5
Anthropic model overviewCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Fable 5
$1 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude API pricingClaude Opus 5
$0.5 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude API pricingDocumented inputs
Claude Fable 5
text, image
Anthropic model overviewClaude Opus 5
text, image
Anthropic model overviewDocumented outputs
Claude Fable 5
Claude Opus 5
Provider availability
Claude Fable 5
Generally Available · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewClaude Opus 5
Generally Available · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewReasoning profile
Claude Fable 5
Reasoning
Claude Opus 5
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Fable 5
Proprietary
Claude Opus 5
Proprietary
License
Claude Fable 5
Proprietary
Claude Opus 5
Proprietary
Release date
Claude Fable 5
2026-06-09
Claude Opus 5
2026-07-24
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- Both entries list Anthropic as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
- Quality signal
- Claude Opus 5 has the higher public score estimate, 82.72 versus 82.7, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.65 vs $0.325. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.9 vs $0.45.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence68 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 3.0
Shared sourceClaude Fable 534.0%Claude Opus 542.7%Claude Opus 5 leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Fable 584.3%SourceClaude Opus 5—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Fable 585%SourceClaude Opus 5—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 590.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 564.7%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 595.0%SourceNot directly comparable
DRACO
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 588.6%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 593.6%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 570.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 585.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP-Atlas claim coverage
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 589.1%SourceNot directly comparable
LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 523.58%SourceNot directly comparable
LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 593.74%SourceNot directly comparable
LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 511.7%SourceNot directly comparable
LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 594.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 580.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass@3
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 587.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass³
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 573.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified avg. turns
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 523.5 turnsSourceNot directly comparable
AutomationBench
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 526.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Fable 595%SourceClaude Opus 596%SourceClaude Opus 5 leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Fable 580%SourceClaude Opus 579.2%SourceClaude Fable 5 leads this result
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Fable 553.5%SourceClaude Opus 553.4%SourceClaude Fable 5 leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Fable 584.3%SourceClaude Opus 5—Not directly comparable
cursorBench31
Claude Fable 570.6%SourceClaude Opus 5—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Shared sourceClaude Fable 570.5%Claude Opus 570.0%Claude Fable 5 leads this result
VulcanBench v3
Claude Fable 587.0%SourceClaude Opus 587.0%SourceTie
SWE Multilingual
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 589.5%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multimodal
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 559.4%SourceNot directly comparable
deepSwe
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 568.8%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Extended
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 563.6%SourceNot directly comparable
ProgramBench (episode 1)
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 583.0%SourceNot directly comparable
ProgramBench
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 593.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
HLE
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 564.7%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 556.3%SourceNot directly comparable
HealthBench (raw)
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 567.1%SourceNot directly comparable
HealthBench (length-adjusted)
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 557.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 559.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HealthBench Professional (raw)
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 573.4%SourceNot directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 590.1%SourceNot directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 549.4%SourceNot directly comparable
SpatialBench Verified
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 572.5%SourceNot directly comparable
SingleCellBench
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 560.6%SourceNot directly comparable
ProteinGym Hard
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 547.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Protein Design
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 542.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Organic chemistry V2
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 561.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Protocols (troubleshooting)
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 561.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Protocols (understanding)
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 578.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
IMO 2026
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 542/42SourceNot directly comparable
RiemannBench (no tools)
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 560.0%SourceNot directly comparable
RiemannBench (tools)
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 579.0%SourceNot directly comparable
ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (no tools)
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 590.8%SourceNot directly comparable
ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (tools)
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 591.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
Multimodal
Blueprint-Bench 2
Claude Fable 538.6%SourceClaude Opus 5—Not directly comparable
OfficeQA Pro
Claude Fable 557.9%SourceClaude Opus 566.9%SourceClaude Opus 5 leads this result
Chartography (no tools)
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 529.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Chartography (tools)
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 583.0%SourceNot directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 50.366SourceNot directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 50.821SourceNot directly comparable
GDP.pdf (no tools)
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 583.4%SourceNot directly comparable
GDP.pdf (tools)
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 585.5%SourceNot directly comparable
OfficeQA
Claude Fable 5—Claude Opus 578.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Claude Opus 5?
Claude Opus 5 has the higher public score estimate, 82.72 versus 82.7, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5 or Claude Opus 5?
Claude Opus 5 leads the like-for-like coding comparison across 2 shared weighted benchmark rows.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Claude Opus 5?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Claude Fable 5 or Claude Opus 5?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.035 on Claude Fable 5 and $0.0175 on Claude Opus 5; repository review costs $0.65 and $0.325; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.9 and $0.45. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5 or Claude Opus 5?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 22, 2026
Watch Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Opus 5
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.