Skip to main content

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5 vs Command A+

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 16 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

83.68/100
Margin
36.2pts
← winning
47.51/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #2 (Supported); Command A+ #135 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and Command A+ share 16 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 18 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 5 to Command A+.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
16
Claude Fable 5 only
18
Command A+ only
5
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Claude Fable 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Command A+ 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 16 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 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 47.51. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Fable 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.50 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens for Command A+. That is roughly 5.0x on output cost alone. Claude Fable 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 128K for Command A+.

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 Command A+
CategoryClaude Fable 5ΔCommand A+
MultimodalClaude Fable 557.9Margin 1.4Command A+59.3
AgenticClaude Fable 584.6MarginNo overlapCommand A+Not measured
CodingClaude Fable 589.2MarginNo overlapCommand A+Not measured

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Fable 5Command A+Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Fable 5$10 input / $50 outputCommand A+$2.5 input / $10 outputCommand A+ has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Fable 5Not availableCommand A+272 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Fable 5Not availableCommand A+0.25 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Fable 51M+Command A+128KClaude Fable 5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Command A+Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 84.3%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 85%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1748714Claude Fable 5 leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 52.8%9.2%Claude Fable 5 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 98.5%80.7%Claude Fable 5 leads
GDPval-AASource 62.4%10.7%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA BriefcaseSource 1574Not 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%25%Claude Fable 5 leads
aaTerminalBench21Source 84.6%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Command A+Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 95%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 80%Not comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 53.5%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 84.3%Not comparable
cursorBench31Source 70.6%Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 70.5%Not comparable
VulcanBench v3Source 87.0%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 76.5%27.9%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 60.2%37.8%Claude Fable 5 leads
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Command A+Result
AA-LCRSource 70.0%46.0%Claude Fable 5 leads
CritPtSource 28.6%0.3%Claude Fable 5 leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Command A+Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 59.9%22.5%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.6%76.1%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-HLESource 53.3%11.4%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 40.2%-4.0%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 61.4%8.9%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 54.9%14.1%Command A+ leads
AA Openness IndexSource 38.9%Not comparable
MultimodalCommand A+ wins
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Command A+Result
Blueprint-Bench 2Source 38.6%Not comparable
OfficeQA ProSource 57.9%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1332Not comparable
MMMUSource 75.1%Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource 63%Not comparable
CharXivSource 52.7%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 63.2%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Command A+Result
AA-IFBenchSource 63.5%73.9%Command A+ leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Command A+?

Claude Fable 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 83.68 to 47.51.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Command A+?

Command A+ has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 59.3 versus 57.9. Claude Fable 5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

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.