Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen3.5-27B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

83.68/100
Margin
23.0pts
← winning
60.7/100
2 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #2 (Supported); Qwen3.5-27B #45 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and Qwen3.5-27B share 14 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 20 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 14 to Qwen3.5-27B.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
14
Claude Fable 5 only
20
Qwen3.5-27B only
14
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Claude Fable 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5-27B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 5 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 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 83.68 to 60.7. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Fable 5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 84.6 against 52. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 84.3% to 41.6%.

Claude Fable 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5-27B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Fable 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 262K for Qwen3.5-27B.

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 Qwen3.5-27B
CategoryClaude Fable 5ΔQwen3.5-27B
AgenticClaude Fable 584.6Margin← 32.6Qwen3.5-27B52.0
CodingClaude Fable 589.2Margin← 24.3Qwen3.5-27B64.9
ReasoningClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5-27B60.6
KnowledgeClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5-27B82.7
MultilingualClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5-27B82.2
MultimodalClaude Fable 557.9MarginNo overlapQwen3.5-27BNot measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5-27B95.0

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Fable 5B · Qwen3.5-27B

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 84.3%B 41.6%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 42.7
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Fable 5 scored 84.3%; Qwen3.5-27B scored 41.6%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.

  2. OSWorld-Verified

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 85%B 56.2%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 28.8
    OSWorld-Verified: Claude Fable 5 scored 85%; Qwen3.5-27B scored 56.2%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 95%B 72.4%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 22.6
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Fable 5 scored 95%; Qwen3.5-27B scored 72.4%. 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 5Qwen3.5-27BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Fable 5$10 input / $50 outputQwen3.5-27B$0 input / $0 outputQwen3.5-27B has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Fable 5Not availableQwen3.5-27BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Fable 5Not availableQwen3.5-27BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Fable 51M+Qwen3.5-27B262KClaude Fable 5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Fable 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3.5-27BResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 84.3%41.6%Claude Fable 5 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 85%56.2%Claude Fable 5 leads
GDPval-AASource 1748—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 52.8%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 98.5%93.9%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
BrowseCompSource —61%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —39.41%Not comparable
CodingClaude Fable 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3.5-27BResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 95%72.4%Claude Fable 5 leads
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%39.5%Claude Fable 5 leads
SWE-RebenchSource —58.9%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3.5-27BResult
AA-LCRSource 70.0%67.3%Claude Fable 5 leads
CritPtSource 28.6%0.9%Claude Fable 5 leads
LongBench v2Source —60.6%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3.5-27BResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 59.9%33.8%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.6%85.8%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-HLESource 53.3%22.2%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 40.2%-42.0%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 61.4%21.0%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 54.9%79.7%Claude Fable 5 leads
MMLU-ProSource —86.1%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —65.6%Not comparable
GPQASource —85.5%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3.5-27BResult
MMLU-ProXSource —82.2%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3.5-27BResult
Blueprint-Bench 2Source 38.6%—Not comparable
OfficeQA ProSource 57.9%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1332—Not comparable
MMMUSource —82.3%Not comparable
MMVUSource —73.3%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —86.0%Not comparable
V*Source —93.7%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —75.0%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3.5-27BResult
AA-IFBenchSource 63.5%75.6%Qwen3.5-27B leads
IFEvalSource —95%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.5-27B?

Claude Fable 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 83.68 to 60.7. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 84.3% and 41.6%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.5-27B?

Claude Fable 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 64.9. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.5-27B?

Claude Fable 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.6 versus 52. 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.