Model comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs SWE-1.7
Head-to-head evidence from 3 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); SWE-1.7 unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and SWE-1.7 share 3 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 31 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 1 to SWE-1.7.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 3
- Claude Fable 5 only
- 31
- SWE-1.7 only
- 1
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 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; SWE-1.7 is the better fit if its strengths line up with your actual workload.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 1 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 SWE-1.7 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 SWE-1.7.
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 | SWE-1.7 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Fable 584.6 | Margin← 3.1 | SWE-1.781.5 |
| Coding | Claude Fable 589.2 | MarginNo overlap | SWE-1.7Not measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Fable 557.9 | MarginNo overlap | SWE-1.7Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 84.3%B 81.5%Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 2.8Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Fable 5 scored 84.3%; SWE-1.7 scored 81.5%. 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 | SWE-1.7 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Fable 5$10 input / $50 output | SWE-1.7Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Fable 5Not available | SWE-1.7Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Fable 5Not available | SWE-1.7Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Fable 51M+ | SWE-1.7256K | Claude Fable 5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Fable 5 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | SWE-1.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 84.3% | 81.5% | 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 |
Coding10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | SWE-1.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 95% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 80% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 53.5% | 42.3% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 84.3% | 81.5% | 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 |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 77.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | SWE-1.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | SWE-1.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 63.5% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or SWE-1.7?
Claude Fable 5 and SWE-1.7 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 agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5 or SWE-1.7?
Claude Fable 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.6 versus 81.5. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 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.