Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5 vs LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 11 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

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

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #2 (Supported); LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract share 11 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 23 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 4 to LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
11
Claude Fable 5 only
23
LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract only
4
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for Claude Fable 5 and LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract is coming soon on BenchLM.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 11 shared benchmark results across 5 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 128K for LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract.

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 LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract
CategoryClaude Fable 5ΔLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract
AgenticClaude Fable 584.6MarginNo overlapLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractNot measured
CodingClaude Fable 589.2MarginNo overlapLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractNot measured
MultimodalClaude Fable 557.9MarginNo overlapLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractNot measured

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Fable 5LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Fable 5$10 input / $50 outputLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Fable 5Not availableLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Fable 5Not availableLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Fable 51M+LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract128KClaude Fable 5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractResult
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%8.5%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
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractResult
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%3.0%Claude Fable 5 leads
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractResult
AA-LCRSource 70.0%0.0%Claude Fable 5 leads
CritPtSource 28.6%0.0%Claude Fable 5 leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 59.9%1.0%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.6%28.9%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-HLESource 53.3%5.1%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 40.2%-83.9%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 61.4%5.2%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 54.9%94.0%Claude Fable 5 leads
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractResult
Blueprint-Bench 2Source 38.6%—Not comparable
OfficeQA ProSource 57.9%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1332—Not comparable
Liquid Extract JSON ValiditySource —99.6%Not comparable
Liquid Extract F1Source —99.6%Not comparable
Liquid Extract VLM JudgeSource —90.6%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —26.5%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractResult
AA-IFBenchSource 63.5%33.1%Claude Fable 5 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Can I compare Claude Fable 5 and LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract 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 LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract today?

Claude Fable 5: $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens 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.