Model comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs Composer 2
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #2 (Supported); Composer 2 unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and Composer 2 share 2 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 32 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 3 to Composer 2.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Claude Fable 5 only
- 32
- Composer 2 only
- 3
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Claude Fable 5 makes more sense if coding is the priority or you need the larger 1M+ context window; Composer 2 is the better fit if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 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 and Composer 2 finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Claude Fable 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.50 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Composer 2. That is roughly 20.0x on output cost alone. Claude Fable 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 200K for Composer 2.
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 | Claude Fable 5 | Δ | Composer 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Fable 589.2 | Margin← 31.2 | Composer 258.0 |
| Agentic | Claude Fable 584.6 | Margin← 22.9 | Composer 261.7 |
| Multimodal | Claude Fable 557.9 | MarginNo overlap | Composer 2Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 84.3%B 61.7%Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 22.6Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Fable 5 scored 84.3%; Composer 2 scored 61.7%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5 | Composer 2 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Fable 5$10 input / $50 output | Composer 2$0.5 input / $2.5 output | Composer 2 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Fable 5Not available | Composer 2Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Fable 5Not available | Composer 2Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Fable 51M+ | Composer 2200K | Claude Fable 5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Fable 5 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Composer 2 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 84.3% | 61.7% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 85% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1748 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 52.8% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 98.5% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 62.4% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
CodingClaude Fable 5 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Composer 2 | 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% | 61.7% | 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% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 60.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 73.7% | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 58% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 96.1% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Composer 2 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 59.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 53.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 40.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 61.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 54.9% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Composer 2 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 63.5% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Composer 2?
Claude Fable 5 and Composer 2 are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5 or Composer 2?
Claude Fable 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 58. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Composer 2?
Claude Fable 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.6 versus 61.7. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
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.