Skip to main content

AnthropicLLM matchup

Claude Fable 5.2vs.Claude Opus 5

Is the higher price worth it?

Claude Fable 5.2 performs better than Claude Opus 5, but costs 1.6 times as much.

Fable 5.2 ahead
IntelligenceOverall index, 100 points = average
130.9

Claude Fable 5.2

Rank 1

117.4

Claude Opus 5

Rank 10

SpeedTokens per second
n/a

Claude Fable 5.2

71

Claude Opus 5

Opus 5 cheaper
Price$ per 1M tokens
$16

Claude Fable 5.2

$10

Claude Opus 5

Choose Claude Fable 5.2 for

KnowledgeMathematicsReasoningGeneralCodingAgentsLegal (not certain)Finance (not certain)

Choose Claude Opus 5 for

No clear advantage

Where is the difference?

Strengths at a glance

Fable 5.2Opus 5

The median of all ranked models is below 100 in every area, so it sits in the centre of the net.

120140160100CodingFable 5.2ReasoningFable 5.2MathematicsFable 5.2KnowledgeFable 5.2AgentsFable 5.2GeneralFable 5.2FinanceslightlyFable 5.2LegalslightlyFable 5.2
CodingFable 5.2 ahead
Fable 5.2131.6Rank 1
Opus 5118.4Rank 9
Median of ranked models87.4

95 % range: Fable 5.2 122.0 to 141.1, Opus 5 114.6 to 122.1.

AreaFable 5.2Opus 5

The same values and verdicts as the bars below. In the close-up the net starts at 100 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 6 of 10 areas, Opus 5 in none.

Fable 5.2 ahead: 6Fable 5.2 slightly ahead: 2too little data: 2

Areas in the overall index
KnowledgeFable 5.2 +24145.5 to 121.8
MathematicsFable 5.2 +21135.2 to 113.8
ReasoningFable 5.2 +17124.9 to 107.7
GeneralFable 5.2 +16132.8 to 116.4
CodingFable 5.2 +13131.6 to 118.4
AgentsFable 5.2 +12124.2 to 112.5
Multimodalonly Opus 5 has a score
Specialist fields
Legalleaning Fable 5.2not certain · 3 and 2 tests
Financeleaning Fable 5.2not certain · 3 and 6 tests
Healthonly Opus 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 3 more areas that do not count toward the overall index
Cybersecurityonly Opus 5 has a score
Searchonly Opus 5 has a score
Productivityonly Opus 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 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.

maxFable 5.2 ahead
19.0 points gap across 10 shared test series
Overall index (max vs. max)Fable 5.2 ahead
Fable 5.2 130.9 vs. Opus 5 117.4

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 codeFable 5.2Coding 131.6 to 118.4
Maths and data analysisFable 5.2Mathematics 135.2 to 113.8, Reasoning 124.9 to 107.7
Facts and researchFable 5.2Knowledge 145.5 to 121.8, Search without a score for Fable 5.2
Agents and workflowsFable 5.2Agents 124.2 to 112.5
Security analysisopenCybersecurity without a score for Fable 5.2
Many requests on a small budgetOpus 5$16 to $10 per 1M tokens
Finance, legal and medical textsleaning Fable 5.2Finance 123.5 to 119.2, Legal 120.9 to 116.3, 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 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

Claude Opus 5: Pelican on a bicycle
A community classic for free-form SVG drawing.

Oct 1, 2026 · 63 s · $0.14

Test details
Run date
Oct 1, 2026
API provider
openrouter
Requested API model
anthropic/claude-opus-5
Reasoning setting
high
Token limit including reasoning
8,192 tokens
Output tokens
5,423 tokens
Cost of the attempt
$0.1357
Response time
63 s
API model reported in response
anthropic/claude-opus-5
Pinned endpoint
Anthropic | anthropic/claude-opus-5-20260723
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.

Earlier attempts (1)

  • Sep 7, 2026API request failedReasoning setting: high
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 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
Intelligence
Overall indexpoints, 100 = reference group average, higher is better130.9117.4
RankRank 1 of 94Rank 10 of 94
Price per 1M tokens
Inputwhat you send$8$5
Outputwhat the model writes$40$25
Speed
Tokens per secondn/a71
Technical
Context windowhow much text the model reads at once1 M tokens≈ 1,500 A4 pages1 M tokens≈ 1,500 A4 pages
Knowledge cutoffJune 2026May 2026
ReleasedNov 9, 2026Jul 24, 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

Is there a better choice?

Successor of Opus 5Claude Opus 5.5

Overall index 125.6, rank 3$4 input and $20 output per 1M tokens

Fable 5.2 vs. Claude Opus 5.5
Cheaper than Opus 5Claude Sonnet 5.5

Overall index 121.8, rank 5$2 input and $10 output per 1M tokens

Fable 5.2 vs. Claude Sonnet 5.5

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

Tax Agent BenchOverall · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 32.1%Claude Opus 5: 47.1%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: 66.9%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: 53.2%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Tax Agent BenchCurrent & Temporal Analysis (weighted pass) · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 66.0%Claude Opus 5: 77.7%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: 77.5%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: 36.5%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: 74.0%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: 60.0%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: 78.3%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026
Tax Agent BenchWeighted Pass · higher is betterTest setup not documented as identicalClaude Fable 5.2: 67.0%Claude Opus 5: 76.7%Vals AIAs of 11/09/2026

More comparisons

Compare Claude Fable 5.2 and Claude Opus 5 with the models people compare them with most often.

Compare another matchup

The most popular comparisons

  1. 1Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs. Claude Opus 5
  2. 2Claude Opus 5 vs. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
  3. 3Claude Opus 5 vs. GLM-5.3-Flash
  4. 4Claude Opus 5 vs. Gemini 3.8 Flash
  5. 5Claude Fable 5.2 vs. Kimi K3
  6. 6Claude Opus 5 vs. DeepSeek-V4-Pro
  7. 7Claude Opus 5 vs. Kimi K3
  8. 8Claude Opus 5 vs. GPT-6 Astra
  9. 9Claude Opus 5 vs. Qwen 3.8 27B
Show all 30 comparisons
  1. 10Claude Opus 5 vs. GLM-5.3
  2. 11Claude Opus 5 vs. GPT-5.6 Terra
  3. 12Claude Opus 5 vs. GPT-5.6 Luna
  4. 13Claude Opus 5 vs. Grok 4.6
  5. 14Claude Haiku 5.5 vs. Claude Opus 5
  6. 15Claude Opus 5 vs. Mistral Large 4
  7. 16Claude Opus 5 vs. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
  8. 17Claude Opus 5 vs. Muse Spark 1.3
  9. 18Claude Opus 5 vs. Claude Sonnet 5
  10. 19Claude Opus 5 vs. GPT-6 Sol
  11. 20Claude Opus 5 vs. Grok 4.7
  12. 21Claude Opus 5 vs. Qwen 3.8 Max 0902
  13. 22Claude Opus 5 vs. Claude Sonnet 4.5
  14. 23Claude Opus 5 vs. Gemini 4 Carbon
  15. 24Claude Opus 5 vs. GPT-6.1 Sol
  16. 25Claude Opus 5 vs. Gemini 4 Argon
  17. 26Claude Fable 5.2 vs. Claude Opus 5.5
  18. 27Claude Opus 5 vs. Kimi K3.1 Pro
  19. 28Claude Fable 5.2 vs. Claude Haiku 5.5
  20. 29Claude Opus 5 vs. Muse Wonder Full
  21. 30Claude Opus 5 vs. GPT-6.1 Terra