Model comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs DeepSeek V3.2
Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #2 (Supported); DeepSeek V3.2 #82 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and DeepSeek V3.2 share 12 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 22 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 7 to DeepSeek V3.2.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 12
- Claude Fable 5 only
- 22
- DeepSeek V3.2 only
- 7
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Fable 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V3.2 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 6 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 55.4. 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 60.9.
Claude Fable 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.28 input / $0.42 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V3.2. That is roughly 119.0x on output cost alone. Claude Fable 5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while DeepSeek V3.2 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Claude Fable 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 128K for DeepSeek V3.2.
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 | DeepSeek V3.2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Fable 589.2 | Margin← 28.3 | DeepSeek V3.260.9 |
| Agentic | Claude Fable 584.6 | MarginNo overlap | DeepSeek V3.2Not measured |
| Math | Claude Fable 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | DeepSeek V3.217.1 |
| Multimodal | Claude Fable 557.9 | MarginNo overlap | DeepSeek V3.2Not measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5 | DeepSeek V3.2 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Fable 5$10 input / $50 output | DeepSeek V3.2$0.28 input / $0.42 output | DeepSeek V3.2 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Fable 5Not available | DeepSeek V3.235 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Fable 5Not available | DeepSeek V3.23.75 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Fable 51M+ | DeepSeek V3.2128K | Claude Fable 5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | DeepSeek V3.2 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 84.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 85% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1748 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 52.8% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 98.5% | 78.9% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| 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 |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 40.2% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 18.5% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 29.57% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Fable 5 wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | DeepSeek V3.2 | 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% | — | Not comparable |
| 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% | 38.7% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 60.9% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 71.5% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | DeepSeek V3.2 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 59.9% | 24.7% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.6% | 75.1% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 53.3% | 10.5% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 40.2% | -46.7% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 61.4% | 24.2% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 54.9% | 93.5% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | DeepSeek V3.2 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 63.5% | 49.0% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or DeepSeek V3.2?
Claude Fable 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 83.68 to 55.4.
Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5 or DeepSeek V3.2?
Claude Fable 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 60.9. Inside this category, AA-SciCode 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.