Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro Base

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

No sourced benchmark result is currently shared by both models. This page therefore compares only the available metadata, pricing, and runtime rows; it does not name a quality winner.
83.68/100
No comparison
N/A
0 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #2 (Supported); DeepSeek V4 Pro Base unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and DeepSeek V4 Pro Base share 0 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 34 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 24 to DeepSeek V4 Pro Base.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
0
Claude Fable 5 only
34
DeepSeek V4 Pro Base only
24
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for Claude Fable 5 and DeepSeek V4 Pro Base is coming soon on BenchLM.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.

Claude Fable 5 has the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 1M for DeepSeek V4 Pro Base.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Fable 5DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Fable 5$10 input / $50 outputDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Fable 5Not availableDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Fable 5Not availableDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Fable 51M+DeepSeek V4 Pro Base1MClaude Fable 5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
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%—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
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
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%—Not comparable
BigCodeBenchSource —59.2%Not comparable
HumanEvalSource —76.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
AA-LCRSource 70.0%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 28.6%—Not comparable
BBHSource —87.5%Not comparable
DROPSource —88.7%Not comparable
HellaSwagSource —88.0%Not comparable
WinoGrandeSource —81.5%Not comparable
CLUEWSCSource —85.2%Not comparable
LongBench v2Source —51.5%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
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
AGIEvalSource —83.1%Not comparable
MMLUSource —90.1%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —90.8%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —73.5%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —90.3%Not comparable
C-EvalSource —93.1%Not comparable
CMMLUSource —90.8%Not comparable
MultiLoKoSource —51.1%Not comparable
SimpleQASource —55.2%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —53.9%Not comparable
FACTS ParametricSource —62.6%Not comparable
TriviaQASource —85.6%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
GSM8KSource —92.6%Not comparable
MATHSource —64.5%Not comparable
CMathSource —90.9%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
MGSMSource —84.4%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
Blueprint-Bench 2Source 38.6%—Not comparable
OfficeQA ProSource 57.9%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1332—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
AA-IFBenchSource 63.5%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Can I compare Claude Fable 5 and DeepSeek V4 Pro Base on BenchLM yet?

Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.

Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?

BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.

What data is available for Claude Fable 5 and DeepSeek V4 Pro Base today?

Claude Fable 5: $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens DeepSeek V4 Pro Base: Pricing unavailable Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
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.