Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5 vs MAI-Thinking-1

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 2 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); MAI-Thinking-1 unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and MAI-Thinking-1 share 4 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 30 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 9 to MAI-Thinking-1.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
4
Claude Fable 5 only
30
MAI-Thinking-1 only
9
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Claude Fable 5 makes more sense if agentic is the priority or you need the larger 1M+ context window; MAI-Thinking-1 is the better fit if its strengths line up with your actual workload.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 4 shared benchmark results across 2 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 MAI-Thinking-1 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 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 256K for MAI-Thinking-1.

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 MAI-Thinking-1
CategoryClaude Fable 5ΔMAI-Thinking-1
AgenticClaude Fable 584.6Margin← 38.6MAI-Thinking-146.0
CodingClaude Fable 589.2Margin← 23.7MAI-Thinking-165.5
KnowledgeClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapMAI-Thinking-172.5
MathClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapMAI-Thinking-189.7
MultimodalClaude Fable 557.9MarginNo overlapMAI-Thinking-1Not measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapMAI-Thinking-185.0

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Fable 5B · MAI-Thinking-1

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 84.3%B 46%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 38.3
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Fable 5 scored 84.3%; MAI-Thinking-1 scored 46%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 80%B 52.8%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 27.2
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Fable 5 scored 80%; MAI-Thinking-1 scored 52.8%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 95%B 73.5%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 21.5
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Fable 5 scored 95%; MAI-Thinking-1 scored 73.5%. 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 5MAI-Thinking-1Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Fable 5$10 input / $50 outputMAI-Thinking-1Not availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Fable 5Not availableMAI-Thinking-1Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Fable 5Not availableMAI-Thinking-1Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Fable 51M+MAI-Thinking-1256KClaude Fable 5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Fable 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5MAI-Thinking-1Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 84.3%46%Claude Fable 5 leads
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
CodingClaude Fable 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5MAI-Thinking-1Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 95%73.5%Claude Fable 5 leads
SWE-bench ProSource 80%52.8%Claude Fable 5 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 53.5%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 84.3%46.0%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%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 60.2%—Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5MAI-Thinking-1Result
AA-LCRSource 70.0%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 28.6%—Not comparable
Graphwalks BFS 128KSource —90%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5MAI-Thinking-1Result
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 —84.2%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —84.2%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —85%Not comparable
SimpleQASource —31%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5MAI-Thinking-1Result
AIME 2025Source —97%Not comparable
AIME26Source —94.5%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —84.9%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5MAI-Thinking-1Result
Blueprint-Bench 2Source 38.6%—Not comparable
OfficeQA ProSource 57.9%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1332—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5MAI-Thinking-1Result
AA-IFBenchSource 63.5%—Not comparable
IFBenchSource —85%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or MAI-Thinking-1?

Claude Fable 5 and MAI-Thinking-1 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 MAI-Thinking-1?

Claude Fable 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 65.5. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5 or MAI-Thinking-1?

Claude Fable 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.6 versus 46. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 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.