Model comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs Composer 2.5
Head-to-head evidence from 4 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 2.5 unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and Composer 2.5 share 4 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 30 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 1 to Composer 2.5.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 4
- Claude Fable 5 only
- 30
- Composer 2.5 only
- 1
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Claude Fable 5 makes more sense if agentic is the priority or you need the larger 1M+ context window; Composer 2.5 is the better fit if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 4 shared benchmark results across 2 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 and Composer 2.5 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 2.5. 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 2.5.
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 2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Fable 584.6 | Margin← 15.3 | Composer 2.569.3 |
| Coding | Claude Fable 589.2 | MarginNo overlap | Composer 2.5Not measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Fable 557.9 | MarginNo overlap | Composer 2.5Not 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 69.3%Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 15Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Fable 5 scored 84.3%; Composer 2.5 scored 69.3%. 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 2.5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Fable 5$10 input / $50 output | Composer 2.5$0.5 input / $2.5 output | Composer 2.5 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Fable 5Not available | Composer 2.5Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Fable 5Not available | Composer 2.5Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Fable 51M+ | Composer 2.5200K | Claude Fable 5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Fable 5 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Composer 2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 84.3% | 69.3% | 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 |
Coding10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Composer 2.5 | 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% | 69.3% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| cursorBench31Source | 70.6% | 63.2% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| cursorBench32Source | 70.5% | 56.1% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| VulcanBench v3Source | 87.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 76.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 60.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 79.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Composer 2.5 | 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 2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 63.5% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Composer 2.5?
Claude Fable 5 and Composer 2.5 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 agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Composer 2.5?
Claude Fable 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.6 versus 69.3. 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.