Model comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #2 (Supported); Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct #186 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct share 4 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 30 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 0 to Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 4
- Claude Fable 5 only
- 30
- Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Claude Fable 5 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 4 shared benchmark results across 2 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 is priced at $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct. Claude Fable 5 has the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 128K for Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct.
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 | Claude Fable 5 | Δ | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Fable 584.6 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Fable 589.2 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Fable 557.9 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructNot measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Fable 5$10 input / $50 output | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct$0 input / $0 output | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Fable 5Not available | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Fable 5Not available | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Fable 51M+ | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct128K | Claude Fable 5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | 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 |
Coding9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | 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% | 27.1% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 59.9% | 7.1% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.6% | 41.7% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 53.3% | 3.8% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 40.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 61.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 54.9% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 63.5% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Claude Fable 5 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct 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 Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct today?
Claude Fable 5: $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct: $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
Related Comparisons
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.