Skip to main content

AnthropicLLM matchup

Claude Fable 5.2vs.Claude Opus 5.5

Is the higher price worth it?

Claude Fable 5.2 and Claude Opus 5.5 perform about equally well, but Claude Fable 5.2 costs twice as much.

level
IntelligenceOverall index, 100 points = average
130.9

Claude Fable 5.2

Rank 1

125.6

Claude Opus 5.5

Rank 3

SpeedTokens per second
n/a

Claude Fable 5.2

75

Claude Opus 5.5

Opus 5.5 cheaper
Price$ per 1M tokens
$16

Claude Fable 5.2

$8

Claude Opus 5.5

Choose Claude Fable 5.2 for

KnowledgeAgentsGeneralMathematicsReasoning (not certain)

Choose Claude Opus 5.5 for

No clear advantage

Where is the difference?

Strengths at a glance

Fable 5.2Opus 5.5

The median of all ranked models is below 110 in every area, so it sits in the centre of the net.

120130140150110CodinglevelReasoningslightlyFable 5.2MathematicsFable 5.2KnowledgeFable 5.2AgentsFable 5.2GeneralFable 5.2FinancelevelLegallevel
Codinglevel
Fable 5.2131.6Rank 1
Opus 5.5130.1Rank 2
Median of ranked models87.4

95 % range: Fable 5.2 122.0 to 141.1, Opus 5.5 122.0 to 138.1.

AreaFable 5.2Opus 5.5

The same values and verdicts as the bars below. In the close-up the net starts at 110 points, just below the weaker model's lowest value; the reference group average is 100. Not in the net because a model has no own value there or the data are too thin: Multimodal, Health.

Fable 5.2 is ahead in 4 of 10 areas, Opus 5.5 in none.

Fable 5.2 ahead: 4Fable 5.2 slightly ahead: 1level: 3too little data: 2

Areas in the overall index
KnowledgeFable 5.2 +12145.5 to 133.4
AgentsFable 5.2 +8124.2 to 116.2
GeneralFable 5.2 +8132.8 to 125.2
MathematicsFable 5.2 +2135.2 to 133.4
Reasoningleaning Fable 5.2not certain · 2 tests each
Codinglevel131.6 to 130.1
Multimodalonly Opus 5.5 has a score
Specialist fields
Financelevel123.5 to 120.7
Legallevel120.9 to 120.6
Healthonly Opus 5.5 has a score

Bar length shows the gap in index points (full width 15 points, one standard deviation of the reference group). Solid means clearly ahead, hatched not certain yet, a thin grey bar level.

Show 4 more areas that do not count toward the overall index
Cybersecurityonly Opus 5.5 has a score
Searchonly Opus 5.5 has a score
Productivityonly Opus 5.5 has a score
Educationonly Opus 5.5 has a score

Bar length shows the gap in index points (full width 15 points, one standard deviation of the reference group). Solid means clearly ahead, hatched not certain yet, a thin grey bar level.

Claude Fable 5.2 vs. Claude Opus 5.5 at the same effort

Both models measured at the same reasoning efforts. This shows whether a lead comes from the model or only from more compute.

lowFable 5.2 ahead
17.6 points gap across 11 shared test series
mediumFable 5.2 ahead
7.7 points gap across 11 shared test series
highFable 5.2 ahead
7.9 points gap across 11 shared test series
xhighFable 5.2 slightly ahead
4.9 points gap across 11 shared test series
maxFable 5.2 ahead
6.1 points gap across 11 shared test series
Overall index (max vs. max)Fable 5.2 slightly ahead
Fable 5.2 130.9 vs. Opus 5.5 125.6

The gap compares only the Artificial Analysis test series in which both models are measured at that effort. Tied below 3 points, ahead only beyond two standard errors.

Which model for which task?

Everyday tasks, translated from the area values above. Each row names the values it rests on.

Writing and debugging codelevelCoding 131.6 to 130.1
Maths and data analysisFable 5.2Mathematics 135.2 to 133.4, Reasoning 124.9 to 121.8
Facts and researchFable 5.2Knowledge 145.5 to 133.4, Search without a score for Fable 5.2
Agents and workflowsFable 5.2Agents 124.2 to 116.2
Security analysisopenCybersecurity without a score for Fable 5.2
Many requests on a small budgetOpus 5.5$16 to $8 per 1M tokens
Finance, legal and medical textslevelFinance 123.5 to 120.7, Legal 120.9 to 120.6, Health without a score for Fable 5.2
Images, screenshots and PDFsopenMultimodal without a score for Fable 5.2

Claude Fable 5.2 vs. Claude Opus 5.5 in our own test

The same prompt for both models. We show the latest attempt without fixes; it does not count toward the overall index.

Pelican on a bicycle

Prompt

Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle

Task origin: Simon Willison

Claude Fable 5.2

Not tested yet

Claude Opus 5.5

Claude Opus 5.5: Pelican on a bicycle
A community classic for free-form SVG drawing.

Oct 1, 2026 · 33 s · $0.07

Test details
Run date
Oct 1, 2026
API provider
openrouter
Requested API model
anthropic/claude-opus-5.5
Reasoning setting
high
Token limit including reasoning
8,192 tokens
Output tokens
3,536 tokens
Cost of the attempt
$0.0708
Response time
33.2 s
API model reported in response
anthropic/claude-opus-5.5
Pinned endpoint
Anthropic | anthropic/claude-opus-5.5-20260921
Temperature
Provider default
Test protocol
community-visual-tests-v1
Technical checks
Passed, not a quality rating

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

SVG short test

There is no shared test round for this selection. Results from different rounds are not mixed.

Claude Fable 5.2 and Claude Opus 5.5 in the overall index

Every model with a place in the overall index, both models of this matchup highlighted. You can add or hide other models.

Overall index (Gradually Meta-Score v5)

20 of 94 models

4 models in this view are measured at a lower reasoning effort than max in the overall index. Dashed column: lower reasoning effort than the top.

Claude Fable 5.2max130.9
Gemini 4 Carbonhigh127.0
Claude Opus 5.5max125.6
Claude Fable 5.1max124.1
Claude Sonnet 5.5max121.8
Gemini 4 Argonhigh121.4
GPT-6 Astramax120.2
Muse Wonder Fullmax118.1
GPT-6.1 Solmax118.0
Claude Opus 5max117.4
Muse Wondermax113.3
Claude Fable 5max112.8
Kimi K3.1 Promax112.6
Muse Ember 1.0max110.4
GPT-6 Solmax109.1
GPT-5.6 Solmax109.1
Gemini 3.7 Flashhigh107.9
Muse Spark 1.3max107.3
Gemini 3.8 Flashhigh106.8
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017max106.7

All data side by side

The better value is bold. For the overall index only when the gap is clear.

MetricClaude Fable 5.2Claude Opus 5.5
Intelligence
Overall indexpoints, 100 = reference group average, higher is better130.9125.6
RankRank 1 of 94Rank 3 of 94
Price per 1M tokens
Inputwhat you send$8$4
Outputwhat the model writes$40$20
Speed
Tokens per secondn/a75
Technical
Context windowhow much text the model reads at once1 M tokens≈ 1,500 A4 pages1 M tokens≈ 1,500 A4 pages
Knowledge cutoffJune 2026June 2026
ReleasedNov 9, 2026Sep 22, 2026
AvailabilityActiveActive
Open weightsnono
  • Claude Fable 5.2, Batch pricing: $4 input and $20 output per million tokens, separate from standard API pricing. Source
  • Claude Fable 5.2, Fast pricing: $16 input and $80 output per million tokens. Fast is a separate serving mode. Source

Prices without caching or batch discounts · Page count as a rule of thumb from Artificial Analysis

Shared benchmarks

Single results from the same benchmark version, task and metric. A value is bold only with the same test setup and a clear gap.

A: Claude Fable 5.2B: Claude Opus 5.5

AA-BriefcaseOverall · higher is betterClaude Fable 5.2: 1,785.3 eloClaude Opus 5.5: 1,800.6 eloArtificial AnalysisAs of 11/10/2026
AA-OmniscienceOverall · higher is betterClaude Fable 5.2: 66.8 pointsClaude Opus 5.5: 48.1 pointsArtificial AnalysisAs of 11/09/2026
AA-Omniscience AccuracyOverall · higher is betterClaude Fable 5.2: 79.1%Claude Opus 5.5: 65.5%Artificial AnalysisAs of 11/09/2026
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateOverall · lower is betterClaude Fable 5.2: 59.3%Claude Opus 5.5: 50.3%Artificial AnalysisAs of 11/09/2026
AutomationBench-AAOverall · higher is betterClaude Fable 5.2: 76.4%Claude Opus 5.5: 69.5%Artificial AnalysisAs of 11/09/2026
CritPt v2 (Hard Subset)Overall · higher is betterClaude Fable 5.2: 76.5%Claude Opus 5.5: 68.0%Artificial AnalysisAs of 11/09/2026
FrontierCodeOverall · higher is betterClaude Fable 5.2: 48.8%Claude Opus 5.5: 46.4%Artificial AnalysisAs of 11/09/2026
FrontierCode 1.1 MainOverall · higher is betterClaude Fable 5.2: 56.2%Claude Opus 5.5: 52.2%Artificial AnalysisAs of 11/09/2026
GDP.pdfOverall · higher is betterClaude Fable 5.2: 24.2%Claude Opus 5.5: 26.2%Artificial AnalysisAs of 11/09/2026
GDPval-AAOverall · higher is betterClaude Fable 5.2: 1,831.3 eloClaude Opus 5.5: 1,866.3 eloArtificial AnalysisAs of 11/10/2026
Show 22 more benchmarks
HLE-DiamondOverall · higher is betterClaude Fable 5.2: 80.2%Claude Opus 5.5: 67.9%Artificial AnalysisAs of 11/09/2026
Tax Agent BenchOverall · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 32.1%Claude Opus 5.5: 44.5%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Terminal-BenchOverall · higher is betterClaude Fable 5.2: 59.6%Claude Opus 5.5: 59.6%Artificial AnalysisAs of 11/09/2026
Terminal-Bench-ScienceOverall · higher is betterClaude Fable 5.2: 73.3%Claude Opus 5.5: 59.0%Artificial AnalysisAs of 11/09/2026
Vals Finance IndexOverall · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 63.6%Claude Opus 5.5: 65.3%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Vals IndexOverall · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 71.3%Claude Opus 5.5: 70.1%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Vals Legal IndexOverall · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 69.2%Claude Opus 5.5: 72.4%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Tax Agent BenchControversy & Precedence Analysis · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 13.3%Claude Opus 5.5: 23.3%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Vals Finance IndexTax Agent Bench · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 32.1%Claude Opus 5.5: 44.5%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Vals IndexTax Agent · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 32.1%Claude Opus 5.5: 44.5%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Vals Legal IndexTax Agent · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 67%Claude Opus 5.5: 72%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Tax Agent BenchControversy & Precedence Analysis (weighted pass) · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 58.2%Claude Opus 5.5: 63.2%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Tax Agent BenchCurrent & Temporal Analysis · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 36.5%Claude Opus 5.5: 49.9%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Tax Agent BenchCurrent & Temporal Analysis (weighted pass) · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 66%Claude Opus 5.5: 77%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Tax Agent BenchFact-Pattern Analysis (weighted pass) · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 64.5%Claude Opus 5.5: 73.1%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Tax Agent BenchForms & Filings · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 20.0%Claude Opus 5.5: 33.3%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Tax Agent BenchForms & Filings (weighted pass) · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 60.1%Claude Opus 5.5: 64.5%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Tax Agent BenchNumbers & Calculations · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 50.0%Claude Opus 5.5: 66.7%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Tax Agent BenchNumbers & Calculations (weighted pass) · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 86.4%Claude Opus 5.5: 91.8%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Tax Agent BenchRule & Source Lookup · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 46.7%Claude Opus 5.5: 46.6%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Tax Agent BenchRule & Source Lookup (weighted pass) · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 68.0%Claude Opus 5.5: 62.2%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Tax Agent BenchWeighted Pass · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 67%Claude Opus 5.5: 72%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026

More comparisons

Compare Claude Fable 5.2 and Claude Opus 5.5 with the models people compare them with most often.

Compare another matchup

The most popular comparisons

  1. 1Claude Opus 5.5 vs. GPT-6 Astra
  2. 2Claude Opus 5.5 vs. DeepSeek-V4-Pro
  3. 3Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Gemini 3.8 Flash
  4. 4Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Claude Sonnet 5.5
  5. 5Claude Opus 5.5 vs. GLM-5.3-Flash
  6. 6Claude Opus 5.5 vs. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
  7. 7Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Qwen 3.8 Max 0902
  8. 8Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Claude Fable 5.1
  9. 9Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Claude Sonnet 5
Show all 50 comparisons
  1. 10Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Kimi K3
  2. 11Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Qwen 3.8 27B
  3. 12Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Claude Opus 4.6
  4. 13Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Gemini 4 Argon
  5. 14Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
  6. 15Claude Opus 5.5 vs. GLM-5.2
  7. 16Claude Opus 5.5 vs. GLM-5.3
  8. 17Claude Opus 5.5 vs. GPT-5.6 Terra
  9. 18Claude Opus 5.5 vs. GPT-5.6 Luna
  10. 19Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Claude Sonnet 4.6
  11. 20Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Grok 4.6
  12. 21Claude Opus 5.5 vs. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
  13. 22Claude Opus 5.5 vs. GPT-5.6 Sol
  14. 23Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Claude Haiku 5.5
  15. 24Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Claude Sonnet 4.5
  16. 25Claude Opus 5.5 vs. DeepSeek-V4-Flash
  17. 26Claude Fable 5.2 vs. Kimi K3
  18. 27Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Claude Opus 4.8
  19. 28Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Muse Spark 1.3
  20. 29Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Gemini 4 Carbon
  21. 30Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Kimi K3.1 Pro
  22. 31Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Mistral Large 3
  23. 32Claude Opus 5.5 vs. GPT-6 Luna
  24. 33Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Mistral Large 4
  25. 34Claude Opus 5.5 vs. GPT-5.5
  26. 35Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Grok 4.7
  27. 36Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Claude Opus 4.5
  28. 37Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Gemini 3.6 Flash
  29. 38Claude Opus 5.5 vs. GPT-6 Sol
  30. 39Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Claude Fable 5
  31. 40Claude Opus 5.5 vs. GPT-6.1 Sol
  32. 41Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Mistral Medium 3.5
  33. 42Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Claude Haiku 4.5
  34. 43Claude Opus 5.5 vs. GLM-5.1
  35. 44Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Muse Wonder Full
  36. 45Claude Opus 5.5 vs. GPT-5.4
  37. 46Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Gemini 3.5 Flash
  38. 47Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Grok 4.5
  39. 48Claude Opus 5.5 vs. GPT-6.1 Terra
  40. 49Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Muse Wonder
  41. 50Claude Fable 5.2 vs. Claude Haiku 5.5