Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

See the free Radar Brief
BenchLM
Anthropic logo
Model A
Claude Fable 5.1

Anthropic

82.74/100

Estimated · Public rank #1

90% interval 71.2–94.3

Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM-5

Updated September 1, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Z.AI logo
Model B
GLM-5

Z.AI

65.49/100

Supported · Public rank #36

90% interval 53.8–77.2

Decision reading

Claude Fable 5.1 has the higher public score estimate, 82.74 versus 65.49, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

3 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Claude Fable 5.1

    Claude Fable 5.1 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    GLM-5

    GLM-5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    GLM-5

    GLM-5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. GLM-5 does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
3
Claude Fable 5.1 only
15
GLM-5 only
33
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

2 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Coding

Directional only
Claude Fable 5.1
81.2
GLM-5
66.3
Weighted basis
1 vs 3 rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
Claude Fable 5.1
65.0
GLM-5
66.4
Weighted basis
1 vs 4 rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1
Not measured
GLM-5
56.2
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1
90.0
GLM-5
60.8
Weighted basis
1 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1
Not measured
GLM-5
56.3
Weighted basis
0 vs 4 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1
Not measured
GLM-5
83.1
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1
Not measured
GLM-5
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1
Not measured
GLM-5
92.6
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Claude Fable 5.1
$0.035
Fits in one request
GLM-5
$0.0026
Fits in one request

GLM-5 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Fable 5.1
$0.65
Fits in one request
GLM-5
$0.0596
Fits in one request

GLM-5 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Claude Fable 5.1
$0.75
Fits in one request
GLM-5
$0.252
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

GLM-5 does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Claude Fable 5.1

$0.25 per 1M cached input tokens

Anthropic Fable 5.1 launch

GLM-5

Not published

Documented inputs

Claude Fable 5.1

Not sourced

GLM-5

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude Fable 5.1

Not sourced

GLM-5

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude Fable 5.1

Reasoning

GLM-5

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Fable 5.1

Proprietary

GLM-5

Open Weight

License

Claude Fable 5.1

Proprietary

GLM-5

Open Weight

Release date

Claude Fable 5.1

2026-09-01

GLM-5

2026-03-01

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
Claude Fable 5.1 has the higher public score estimate, 82.74 versus 65.49, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.65 vs $0.0596. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.75 vs $0.252.
Context tradeoff
Claude Fable 5.1 has the larger documented window (1M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence51 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 4.0

    Claude Fable 5.155.80%
    Source
    GLM-5—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1

    Claude Fable 5.152.6%
    Source
    GLM-5—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Claude Fable 5.141.7%
    Source
    GLM-5—

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    Claude Fable 5.131.4%
    Source
    GLM-5—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Claude Fable 5.177.8%
    Source
    GLM-5—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon Verified Pass@3

    Claude Fable 5.181.5%
    Source
    GLM-5—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon Verified Pass³

    Claude Fable 5.173.1%
    Source
    GLM-5—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon Verified avg. turns

    Claude Fable 5.123.7 turns
    Source
    GLM-5—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-556.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-557.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • QwenClawBench

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-554.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-565.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepPlanning

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-514.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-538%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-531.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP-Tasks

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-560.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-569.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-543.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-550.99%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Fable 5.181.2%
    Source
    GLM-555.1%
    Source

    Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result

  • SWE Multilingual

    Claude Fable 5.189.1%
    Source
    GLM-573.3%
    Source

    Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result

  • SWE Multimodal

    Claude Fable 5.154.7%
    Source
    GLM-5—

    Not directly comparable

  • deepSwe

    Claude Fable 5.167.4%
    Source
    GLM-5—

    Not directly comparable

  • ProgramBench

    Claude Fable 5.187.6%
    Source
    GLM-5—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    Claude Fable 5.173.4%
    Source
    GLM-5—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-577.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified*

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-572.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-Rebench

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-562.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • React Native Evals

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-574.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-1

    Claude Fable 5.197.50%
    Source
    GLM-5—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Claude Fable 5.190%
    Source
    GLM-5—

    Not directly comparable

  • LongBench v2

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-560.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AI-Needle

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-563.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HLE

    Claude Fable 5.165%
    Source
    GLM-550.4%
    Source

    Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result

  • HLE w/o tools

    Claude Fable 5.160.9%
    Source
    GLM-5—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-586%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-586.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SuperGPQA

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-566.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-585.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Arcee)

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-585.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME26

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-595.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME25 (Arcee)

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-593.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2025

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-597.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Nov 2025

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-596.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-586.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMAnswerBench

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-582.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-516.434%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-52.100%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multilingual

  • MMLU-ProX

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-583.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NOVA-63

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-555.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFEval

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    GLM-592.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM-5?

Claude Fable 5.1 has the higher public score estimate, 82.74 versus 65.49, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM-5?

The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM-5?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.

Which costs less, Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM-5?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.035 on Claude Fable 5.1 and $0.0026 on GLM-5; repository review costs $0.65 and $0.0596; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.75 and $0.252. GLM-5 does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM-5?

Claude Fable 5.1 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 1, 2026

Watch Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM-5

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.