Model comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #2 (Supported); Qwen3.6 Plus #30 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and Qwen3.6 Plus share 19 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 15 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 41 to Qwen3.6 Plus.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 19
- Claude Fable 5 only
- 15
- Qwen3.6 Plus only
- 41
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Claude Fable 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6 Plus only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 19 shared benchmark results across 6 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 65.2. 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 61.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Pro, 80% to 56.6%. Qwen3.6 Plus 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 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 1M for Qwen3.6 Plus.
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 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Fable 584.6 | Margin← 23.0 | Qwen3.6 Plus61.6 |
| Multimodal | Claude Fable 557.9 | Margin→ 21.9 | Qwen3.6 Plus79.8 |
| Coding | Claude Fable 589.2 | Margin← 18.9 | Qwen3.6 Plus70.3 |
| Reasoning | Claude Fable 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus62.0 |
| Knowledge | Claude Fable 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus57.1 |
| Math | Claude Fable 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus60.5 |
| Multilingual | Claude Fable 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus84.7 |
| Inst. Following | Claude Fable 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus82.3 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 80%B 56.6%Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 23.4SWE-bench Pro: Claude Fable 5 scored 80%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 56.6%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 84.3%B 61.6%Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 22.7Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Fable 5 scored 84.3%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 61.6%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 95%B 78.8%Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 16.2SWE-bench Verified: Claude Fable 5 scored 95%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 78.8%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Fable 5$10 input / $50 output | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Fable 5Not available | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Fable 5Not available | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Fable 51M+ | Qwen3.6 Plus1M | Claude Fable 5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Fable 5 wins24 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 84.3% | 61.6% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 85% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1748 | 1135 | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 52.8% | 27.6% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 98.5% | 97.7% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 62.4% | 31.8% | 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 | — | 58.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 57.2% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 70.7% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 44.3% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 41.5% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 39.8% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 48.2% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 74.1% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 74.3% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 50.60% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 18.0% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Fable 5 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 95% | 78.8% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 80% | 56.6% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| 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% | 54.5% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 60.2% | 40.7% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 73.8% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 87.1% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 25.56% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 59.9% | 39.6% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.6% | 88.2% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 53.3% | 25.7% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 40.2% | 2.7% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 61.4% | 26.2% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 54.9% | 32.0% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| GPQASource | — | 90.4% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 71.6% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 88.5% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.5% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93.3% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 28.8% | Not comparable |
Math7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | — | 95.3% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 96.7% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 94.6% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 87.8% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 83.8% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | — | 26.207% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | — | 8.333% | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
MultimodalQwen3.6 Plus wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blueprint-Bench 2Source | 38.6% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQA ProSource | 57.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1332 | 1249 | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| MMMUSource | — | 86.0% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 78.8% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 88.0% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.0% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 68.2% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 81.5% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 96.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 78.0% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Claude Fable 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 83.68 to 65.2. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Pro, where the scores are 80% and 56.6%.
Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Claude Fable 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 70.3. 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 Plus?
Claude Fable 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.6 versus 61.6. 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 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79.8 versus 57.9. Inside this category, Design Arena Website is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.