Model comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs Interfaze Beta
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #2 (Supported); Interfaze Beta unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and Interfaze Beta share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 34 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 10 to Interfaze Beta.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- Claude Fable 5 only
- 34
- Interfaze Beta only
- 10
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Claude Fable 5 makes more sense if you need the larger 1M+ context window; Interfaze Beta is the better fit if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 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 Interfaze Beta 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 $1.50 input / $3.50 output per 1M tokens for Interfaze Beta. That is roughly 14.3x on output cost alone. Claude Fable 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 1M for Interfaze Beta.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5 | Interfaze Beta | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Fable 5$10 input / $50 output | Interfaze Beta$1.5 input / $3.5 output | Interfaze Beta has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Fable 5Not available | Interfaze BetaNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Fable 5Not available | Interfaze BetaNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Fable 51M+ | Interfaze Beta1M | Claude Fable 5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Interfaze Beta | 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% | — | 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 | Interfaze Beta | 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% | — | Not comparable |
| Spider 2.0-LiteSource | — | 52.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Interfaze Beta | 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 |
| GPQASource | — | 89.9% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 89.9% | Not comparable |
| MMMLUSource | — | 90.9% | Not comparable |
MultimodalInterfaze Beta wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Interfaze Beta | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blueprint-Bench 2Source | 38.6% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQA ProSource | 57.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1332 | — | Not comparable |
| OCRBench V2Source | — | 70.7% | Not comparable |
| olmOCRSource | — | 85.7% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 82.1% | Not comparable |
| VoxPopuli WERSource | — | 2.4% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 71.1% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Interfaze Beta?
Claude Fable 5 and Interfaze Beta 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 multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Interfaze Beta?
Interfaze Beta has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 71.1 versus 57.9. Claude Fable 5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
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.