Head-to-head comparison

Claude Fable 5 vs. Mistral Medium 3.5

Compare published benchmark results from matching versions and cohorts, API pricing, and technical specifications. Any documented test setup differences remain visible.

shared result series: 20
distinct benchmarks: 20
latest retrieval: 2026-09-29

First modelSecond model

Specifications

General specifications

Release date, availability, context window, architecture, and published parameter counts at a glance. Undisclosed details remain marked as unavailable.

Specifications for Claude Fable 5 and Mistral Medium 3.5
Attribute	Claude Fable 5	Mistral Medium 3.5
Provider	Anthropic	Mistral AI
Released	Jun 9, 2026	Apr 28, 2026
Availability	Active	Active
Model type	Proprietary	Open Weights
Parameters	Not published	128B
Architecture	Not published	Dense
Context window	1,000,000 tokens	262,144 tokens
Knowledge cutoff	January 2026	Not published
Technical sources	Model, Context, Knowledge cutoff	Model, Context

Pricing

API pricing compared

The table compares official standard API rates per 1M tokens, including published cache pricing. Batch, fast, priority, regional surcharges, tool calls, and cloud platform pricing are excluded.

API pricing for Claude Fable 5 and Mistral Medium 3.5
Price type	Claude Fable 5	Mistral Medium 3.5
API input	$10	$1.5
API output	$50	$7.5
Cache read	$1	Not listed
Cache write (5 min.)	$12.5	Not listed
Cache write (1 hr.)	$20	Not listed
Price verified	09/22/2026 Source	09/22/2026 Source

Claude Fable 5Mistral Medium 3.5

API inputUSD per 1M tokens, base tier

Claude Fable 5$10

Mistral Medium 3.5$1.5

API outputUSD per 1M tokens, base tier

Claude Fable 5$50

Mistral Medium 3.5$7.5

Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Pricing by provider

Direct developer pricing and provider endpoint tariffs routed through OpenRouter are listed separately. Prices are in USD per 1M tokens. Context-dependent direct tiers plus regional, Flex, Priority, and other OpenRouter tariffs remain individually identifiable.

Provider pricing for Claude Fable 5 and Mistral Medium 3.5
Model	Provider	Purchase route and tariff	Input per 1M tokens	Output per 1M tokens	Source
Claude Fable 5	Anthropic	Direct from developerStandard API	Lowest listed price: $10	Lowest listed price: $50	Source09/22/2026
	Amazon Bedrock	Via OpenRouteramazon-bedrock	Lowest listed price: $10	Lowest listed price: $50	Source10/02/2026
	Anthropic	Via OpenRouteranthropic	Lowest listed price: $10	Lowest listed price: $50	Source10/02/2026
	Azure	Via OpenRouterazure	Lowest listed price: $10	Lowest listed price: $50	Source10/02/2026
	Claude Platform on AWS	Via OpenRouterclaude-on-aws	Lowest listed price: $10	Lowest listed price: $50	Source10/02/2026
	Google	Via OpenRoutergoogle-vertex/europe	$11	$55	Source10/02/2026
	Google	Via OpenRoutergoogle-vertex/global	Lowest listed price: $10	Lowest listed price: $50	Source10/02/2026
Mistral Medium 3.5	Mistral AI	Direct from developerStandard API	Lowest listed price: $1.5	Lowest listed price: $7.5	Source09/22/2026
	Mistral	Via OpenRoutermistral	Lowest listed price: $1.5	Lowest listed price: $7.5	Source10/02/2026
	Mistral	Via OpenRoutermistral/eu	$1.65	$8.25	Source10/02/2026
	Mistral	Via OpenRoutermistral/zdr	Lowest listed price: $1.5	Lowest listed price: $7.5	Source10/02/2026

Performance

Shared benchmarks

Only published results with the same benchmark version, task, metric, and comparison cohort are paired. Different reasoning levels, agents, harnesses, or output limits appear directly in the table.

Capability profile from matched benchmarks

Each axis averages directly matched benchmark families. A value of 100 means the stronger value within this pair, not a universal quality score.

Claude Fable 5

Mistral Medium 3.5

Coding: 100 / 27.5 (3 benchmark families)

Reasoning: 100 / 37.4 (1 benchmark family)

Mathematics: 100 / 9.5 (1 benchmark family)

Knowledge: 100 / 82.3 (1 benchmark family)

Finance: 100 / 53.9 (6 benchmark families)

Legal: 100 / 11.1 (2 benchmark families)

Agentic tasks: 100 / 48.4 (1 benchmark family)

Health: 100 / 68.4 (2 benchmark families)

20 matched rows from 20 benchmark families were considered. The radar shows 8 of 10 comparable categories.

Claude Fable 5Mistral Medium 3.5

Code MigrationOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference

Claude Fable 555.065 %

Mistral Medium 3.55.127 %

CorpFin v2Overall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference

Claude Fable 571.834 %

Mistral Medium 3.558.78 %

EMBOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference

Claude Fable 573.666 %

Mistral Medium 3.511.185 %

Finance Agent (v2)Overall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference

Claude Fable 556.314 %

Mistral Medium 3.532.103 %

GPQA DiamondOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference

Claude Fable 593.182 %

Mistral Medium 3.534.848 %

Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkOverall · Task fully resolved. Higher is better. No documented setup difference

Claude Fable 511.25 %

Mistral Medium 3.50.417 %

Legal Research BenchOverall · All-pass. Higher is better. No documented setup difference

Claude Fable 549.519 %

Mistral Medium 3.59.135 %

MedCodeOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference

Claude Fable 556.07 %

Mistral Medium 3.533.752 %

MedScribeOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference

Claude Fable 588.522 %

Mistral Medium 3.567.728 %

MMLU-ProOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference

Claude Fable 591.502 %

Mistral Medium 3.575.335 %

MortgageTaxOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference

Claude Fable 568.919 %

Mistral Medium 3.528.895 %

ProofBenchOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference

Claude Fable 595 %

Mistral Medium 3.59 %

Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Benchmark scores for Claude Fable 5 and Mistral Medium 3.5
Benchmark and task	Claude Fable 5	Mistral Medium 3.5	Source
Code MigrationOverall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better	Winner55.065 %	5.127 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/27/2026
CorpFin v2Overall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 2Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better	Winner71.834 %	58.78 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 08/12/2026
EMBOverall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better	Winner73.666 %	11.185 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/27/2026
Finance Agent (v2)Overall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 2Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better	Winner56.314 %	32.103 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/27/2026
GPQA DiamondOverall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better	Winner93.182 %	34.848 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/01/2026
Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkOverall · Task fully resolved Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: task resolution rateScoring: Higher is better	Winner11.25 %	0.417 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/27/2026
Legal Research BenchOverall · All-pass Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: all-pass rateScoring: Higher is better	Winner49.519 %	9.135 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/27/2026
MedCodeOverall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better	Winner56.07 %	33.752 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/26/2026
MedScribeOverall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better	Winner88.522 %	67.728 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/26/2026
MMLU-ProOverall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better	Winner91.502 %	75.335 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/01/2026
MortgageTaxOverall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better	Winner68.919 %	28.895 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/01/2026
ProofBenchOverall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1.1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better	Winner95 %	9 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/28/2026
SAGEOverall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better	Winner51.89 %	37.613 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/26/2026
SWE-bench VerifiedOverall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better	Winner95 %	66.4 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/01/2026
Tax Agent BenchOverall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better	Winner69.822 %	27.291 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/27/2026
TaxEval v2Overall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 2Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better	Winner76.942 %	67.988 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/01/2026
Terminal-Bench 2.1Overall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 2.1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better	Winner80.524 %	38.951 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/27/2026
Vals IndexOverall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 2Metric: weighted index scoreScoring: Higher is better	Winner66.036 %	17.947 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/27/2026
Vals Multimodal IndexOverall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1.2Metric: weighted index scoreScoring: Higher is better	Winner74.154 %	34.768 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 08/11/2026
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Overall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1.1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is betterSettings: Harness: OpenHands	Winner90.352 %	2.888 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/27/2026
Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Our model tests

Our tests

Compare how the models respond to the same prompt. Each test shows the first attempt, with no subsequent fixes to the generated code. These results do not contribute to an overall score.

Pelican on a bicycle

A community classic for free-form SVG drawing.

Claude Fable 5

Reasoning (requested): high

First attempt

Run date: 7 Sept 2026
API provider: openrouter
Requested API model: anthropic/claude-fable-5
API model reported in response: anthropic/claude-fable-5
Reasoning setting: high
Pinned endpoint: Anthropic | anthropic/claude-5-fable-20260609
Temperature: Provider default
Token limit including reasoning: 8,192 tokens
Test protocol: community-visual-tests-v1
Technical checks: Passed, not a quality rating
Response time: 53.1 s

Visually reviewed. This individual test does not establish overall model quality.

Mistral Medium 3.5

API access was unavailable for this run. The model was not evaluated.

Reasoning (requested): high

First attempt

Run date: 7 Sept 2026
API provider: openrouter
Requested API model: mistralai/mistral-medium-3-5
Reasoning setting: high
Pinned endpoint: Mistral | mistralai/mistral-medium-3.5-20260430
Temperature: Provider default
Token limit including reasoning: 8,192 tokens
Test protocol: community-visual-tests-v1
Technical checks: Not run

Not yet visually reviewed. A successful recording does not confirm correct physics or full compliance with the prompt.

Prompt and test conditions

Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle

Token limit including reasoning: 8,192 tokens

Task origin (Simon Willison)

How to read this comparison

Winning one benchmark is not an overall verdict

Your workload, budget, and required context length matter most. A coding benchmark says little about visual understanding or agent performance.

The standard price table uses direct developer rates. The provider comparison labels OpenRouter endpoints, regions, and special tariffs separately.

Every result links to its measurement source and retrieval date. Labels distinguish vendor reports, official benchmark leaderboards, and independent evaluations. Disputed or archived results are excluded.

More matchups

Compare Claude Fable 5 and Mistral Medium 3.5 with other leading models using the same data and benchmark logic.

View the complete LLM comparison