Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 26 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

83.68/100
No comparison
N/A
2 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #2 (Supported); DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) 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 (Max) share 26 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 8 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 22 to DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max).

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
26
Claude Fable 5 only
8
DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) only
22
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; DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) is the better fit if you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 26 shared benchmark results across 6 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 DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) 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 $0.43 input / $0.87 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max). That is roughly 57.5x on output cost alone. Claude Fable 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 1M for DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max).

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 DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)
CategoryClaude Fable 5ΔDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)
CodingClaude Fable 589.2Margin← 18.3DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)70.9
AgenticClaude Fable 584.6Margin← 10.1DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)74.5
KnowledgeClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)60.1
MathClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)95.2
MultimodalClaude Fable 557.9MarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Fable 5B · DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)

  1. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 80%B 55.4%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 24.6
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Fable 5 scored 80%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 55.4%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 84.3%B 67.9%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 16.4
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Fable 5 scored 84.3%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 67.9%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 95%B 80.6%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 14.4
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Fable 5 scored 95%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 80.6%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Fable 5DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Fable 5$10 input / $50 outputDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)$0.435 input / $0.87 outputDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Fable 5Not availableDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Fable 5Not availableDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Fable 51M+DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)1MClaude Fable 5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Fable 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 84.3%67.9%Claude Fable 5 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 85%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 17481307Claude Fable 5 leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 52.8%36.4%Claude Fable 5 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 98.5%96.2%Claude Fable 5 leads
GDPval-AASource 62.4%40.4%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA BriefcaseSource 1574932Claude Fable 5 leads
AA AutomationBenchSource 48.6%—Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 51.1%40.4%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA Harvey LABSource 93.6%84.4%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA Tau3 BankingSource 26.8%25.8%Claude Fable 5 leads
terminalBenchHardSource 62.9%46.2%Claude Fable 5 leads
aaTerminalBench21Source 84.6%64%Claude Fable 5 leads
BrowseCompSource —83.4%Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource —48.2%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —73.6%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —51.8%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —24.3%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —38.3%Not comparable
CodingClaude Fable 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 95%80.6%Claude Fable 5 leads
SWE-bench ProSource 80%55.4%Claude Fable 5 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 53.5%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 84.3%67.9%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%59.4%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 60.2%50.0%Claude Fable 5 leads
CodeforcesSource —3206.0Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —76.2%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource —49.93%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
AA-LCRSource 70.0%66.3%Claude Fable 5 leads
CritPtSource 28.6%12.9%Claude Fable 5 leads
MRCR 1MSource —83.5%Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource —62.0%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 59.9%44.3%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.6%88.8%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-HLESource 53.3%35.9%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 40.2%-10.0%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 61.4%43.3%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 54.9%94.0%Claude Fable 5 leads
MMLU-ProSource —87.5%Not comparable
SimpleQASource —57.9%Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource —84.4%Not comparable
GPQASource —90.1%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —90.1%Not comparable
HLESource —37.7%Not comparable
AA Openness IndexSource —50.0%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
HMMT Feb 2026Source —95.2%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —89.8%Not comparable
ApexSource —38.3%Not comparable
Apex ShortlistSource —90.2%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
Blueprint-Bench 2Source 38.6%—Not comparable
OfficeQA ProSource 57.9%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13321264Claude Fable 5 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
AA-IFBenchSource 63.5%76.5%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)?

Claude Fable 5 and DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) 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 DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)?

Claude Fable 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 70.9. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)?

Claude Fable 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.6 versus 74.5. Inside this category, AA Briefcase is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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.