Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen3.6-27B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

83.68/100
Margin
29.9pts
← winning
53.82/100
2 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #2 (Supported); Qwen3.6-27B #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and Qwen3.6-27B share 19 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 15 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 35 to Qwen3.6-27B.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
19
Claude Fable 5 only
15
Qwen3.6-27B only
35
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Claude Fable 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-27B only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 19 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 3 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 53.82. 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 59.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Pro, 80% to 53.5%. Qwen3.6-27B does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

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 Qwen3.6-27B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Fable 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 262K for Qwen3.6-27B.

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 Qwen3.6-27B
CategoryClaude Fable 5ΔQwen3.6-27B
AgenticClaude Fable 584.6Margin← 25.3Qwen3.6-27B59.3
MultimodalClaude Fable 557.9Margin→ 18.8Qwen3.6-27B76.7
CodingClaude Fable 589.2Margin← 11.7Qwen3.6-27B77.5
KnowledgeClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6-27B53.3
MathClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6-27B89.2

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Fable 5B · Qwen3.6-27B

  1. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 80%B 53.5%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 26.5
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Fable 5 scored 80%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 53.5%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 84.3%B 59.3%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 25
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Fable 5 scored 84.3%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 59.3%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 95%B 77.2%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 17.8
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Fable 5 scored 95%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 77.2%. 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 5Qwen3.6-27BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Fable 5$10 input / $50 outputQwen3.6-27B$0 input / $0 outputQwen3.6-27B has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Fable 5Not availableQwen3.6-27BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Fable 5Not availableQwen3.6-27BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Fable 51M+Qwen3.6-27B262KClaude Fable 5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Fable 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3.6-27BResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 84.3%59.3%Claude Fable 5 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 85%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 17481140Claude Fable 5 leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 52.8%27.0%Claude Fable 5 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 98.5%94.2%Claude Fable 5 leads
GDPval-AASource 62.4%32.0%Claude Fable 5 leads
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
Claw-EvalSource —72.4%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —53.4%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1487Not comparable
AndroidWorldSource —70.3%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —54.84%Not comparable
CodingClaude Fable 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3.6-27BResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 95%77.2%Claude Fable 5 leads
SWE-bench ProSource 80%53.5%Claude Fable 5 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 53.5%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 84.3%59.3%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%53.7%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 60.2%39.8%Claude Fable 5 leads
SWE MultilingualSource —71.3%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —83.9%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —36.2%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3.6-27BResult
AA-LCRSource 70.0%68.7%Claude Fable 5 leads
CritPtSource 28.6%1.1%Claude Fable 5 leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3.6-27BResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 59.9%37.0%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.6%84.2%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-HLESource 53.3%21.6%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 40.2%-19.8%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 61.4%19.2%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 54.9%48.3%Qwen3.6-27B leads
MMLU-ProSource —86.2%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —93.5%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —66%Not comparable
C-EvalSource —91.4%Not comparable
GPQASource —87.8%Not comparable
HLESource —24%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3.6-27BResult
HMMT Feb 2025Source —93.8%Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source —90.7%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —84.3%Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource —80.8%Not comparable
AIME26Source —94.1%Not comparable
MultimodalQwen3.6-27B wins
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3.6-27BResult
Blueprint-Bench 2Source 38.6%—Not comparable
OfficeQA ProSource 57.9%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1332—Not comparable
MMMUSource —82.9%Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource —75.8%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource —84.1%Not comparable
DynaMathSource —85.6%Not comparable
MStarSource —81.4%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —56.1%Not comparable
CharXivSource —78.4%Not comparable
CC-OCRSource —81.2%Not comparable
CountBenchSource —97.8%Not comparable
RefCOCO (avg)Source —92.5%Not comparable
ERQASource —62.5%Not comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source —87.7%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —84.4%Not comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)Source —86.6%Not comparable
V*Source —94.7%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —74.6%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3.6-27BResult
AA-IFBenchSource 63.5%67.6%Qwen3.6-27B leads
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Claude Fable 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 83.68 to 53.82. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Pro, where the scores are 80% and 53.5%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Claude Fable 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 77.5. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Claude Fable 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.6 versus 59.3. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.7 versus 57.9. Claude Fable 5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

Claude Fable 5
API / mo$0
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Qwen3.6-27B
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$429
Break-even—
Model the full break-even

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.