Model comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs Trinity-Large-Thinking
Head-to-head evidence from 14 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); Trinity-Large-Thinking #100 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and Trinity-Large-Thinking share 14 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 20 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 5 to Trinity-Large-Thinking.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 14
- Claude Fable 5 only
- 20
- Trinity-Large-Thinking only
- 5
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Claude Fable 5 and Trinity-Large-Thinking is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 6 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 $0.25 input / $0.90 output per 1M tokens for Trinity-Large-Thinking. Claude Fable 5 has the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 512K for Trinity-Large-Thinking.
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 | Trinity-Large-Thinking |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Fable 584.6 | MarginNo overlap | Trinity-Large-ThinkingNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Fable 589.2 | MarginNo overlap | Trinity-Large-ThinkingNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Fable 557.9 | MarginNo overlap | Trinity-Large-ThinkingNot measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5 | Trinity-Large-Thinking | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Fable 5$10 input / $50 output | Trinity-Large-Thinking$0.25 input / $0.9 output | Trinity-Large-Thinking has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Fable 5Not available | Trinity-Large-ThinkingNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Fable 5Not available | Trinity-Large-ThinkingNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Fable 51M+ | Trinity-Large-Thinking512K | Claude Fable 5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Trinity-Large-Thinking | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 84.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 85% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1748 | 554 | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 52.8% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 98.5% | 90.1% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 62.4% | 2.7% | 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 |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 32.55% | Not comparable |
Coding10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Trinity-Large-Thinking | 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% | 36.1% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | — | 63.2% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Trinity-Large-Thinking | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 59.9% | 24.5% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.6% | 75.2% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 53.3% | 14.7% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 40.2% | -44.2% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 61.4% | 22.8% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 54.9% | 86.6% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 76.3% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | — | 83.4% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Trinity-Large-Thinking | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME25 (Arcee)Source | — | 96.3% | Not comparable |
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Trinity-Large-Thinking | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 63.5% | 56.3% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Claude Fable 5 and Trinity-Large-Thinking 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 Trinity-Large-Thinking today?
Claude Fable 5: $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens Trinity-Large-Thinking: $0.25 input / $0.90 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.