Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Claude Fable 5.2 vs Grok Build 0.1

Updated November 9, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInAPI/MCP

Decision reading

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead. 0 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
Anthropic logo
Claude Fable 5.2

Anthropic

91.19/100

Estimated · Public rank #1

Conditional range 76.8–100.0

Model B
xAI logo
Grok Build 0.1

xAI

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Shared results
0
Claude Fable 5.2 only
30
Grok Build 0.1 only
1
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8
Estimated: Claude Fable 5.2. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works

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 5.2

    Claude Fable 5.2 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Grok Build 0.1

    Grok Build 0.1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

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

    Grok Build 0.1

    Grok Build 0.1 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

    Grok Build 0.1

    Grok Build 0.1 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

    Claude Fable 5.2 and Grok Build 0.1 are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    Claude Fable 5.2 and Grok Build 0.1 are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

86.9Claude Fable 5.228.0Grok Build 0.1

Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8

Claude Fable 5.2 has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboardShortlist models for this job
Same basis rules as the category table below

What is actually comparable

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

3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

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.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Directional only
Claude Fable 5.2
90.7
Estimated · #1/132
Grok Build 0.1
35.2
Estimated · #88/132
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 8 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Directional only
Claude Fable 5.2
86.9
Estimated · #1/158
Grok Build 0.1
28.0
Estimated · #119/158
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 8 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Directional only
Claude Fable 5.2
90.7
Supported · #1/157
Grok Build 0.1
37.8
Estimated · #92/157
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.2
89.8
Estimated · #1/67
Grok Build 0.1
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.2
97.6
Supported · #1/179
Grok Build 0.1
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.2
Not ranked
Grok Build 0.1
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.2
Not ranked
Grok Build 0.1
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.2
Not ranked
Grok Build 0.1
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

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 5.2
$0.028
Fits in one request
Grok Build 0.1
$0.002
Fits in one request

Grok Build 0.1 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Fable 5.2
$0.52
Fits in one request
Grok Build 0.1
$0.056
Fits in one request

Grok Build 0.1 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 5.2
$0.6
Fits in one request
Grok Build 0.1
$0.08
Fits in one request

Grok Build 0.1 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

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 5.2

$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens

Claude API pricing

Grok Build 0.1

$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens

Reasoning profile

Claude Fable 5.2

Reasoning

Grok Build 0.1

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Fable 5.2

Proprietary

Grok Build 0.1

Proprietary

License

Claude Fable 5.2

Proprietary

Grok Build 0.1

Proprietary

Release date

Claude Fable 5.2

2026-11-09

Grok Build 0.1

2026-05-20

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
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.52 vs $0.056. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.6 vs $0.08.
Context tradeoff
Claude Fable 5.2 has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Claude Fable 5.2 or Grok Build 0.1?

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5.2 or Grok Build 0.1?

Claude Fable 5.2 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 86.9 to 28. Claude Fable 5.2 and Grok Build 0.1 are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5.2 or Grok Build 0.1?

Claude Fable 5.2 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 90.7 to 35.2. Claude Fable 5.2 and Grok Build 0.1 are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, Claude Fable 5.2 or Grok Build 0.1?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.028 on Claude Fable 5.2 and $0.002 on Grok Build 0.1; repository review costs $0.52 and $0.056; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.6 and $0.08. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5.2 or Grok Build 0.1?

Claude Fable 5.2 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence31 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 4.0

    Claude Fable 5.267.60%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1

    Claude Fable 5.274.6%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    Claude Fable 5.251.4%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.1 Offline

    Claude Fable 5.289.3%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • WANDR

    Claude Fable 5.282.1%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • Remote Labor Index

    Claude Fable 5.241.3%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • RoboDojo Sim

    Claude Fable 5.264.9%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • DRACO

    Claude Fable 5.287.7%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Claude Fable 5.2—
    Grok Build 0.149.15%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Fable 5.293%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Claude Fable 5.296.6%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multimodal

    Claude Fable 5.274.1%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    Claude Fable 5.274.3%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierSWE v2

    Claude Fable 5.269.9%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • ProgramBench

    Claude Fable 5.285.6%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierCode 2.0

    Claude Fable 5.249.1%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • CursorBench 4.0

    Claude Fable 5.260.0%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-3

    Claude Fable 5.265.7%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-3 Provider Adapter

    Claude Fable 5.294.90%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • STEM Professor Bench

    Claude Fable 5.261.8%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • Chartography (no tools)

    Claude Fable 5.273.4%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • Chartography (tools)

    Claude Fable 5.291.6%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • OfficeQA

    Claude Fable 5.283.4%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • OfficeQA Pro

    Claude Fable 5.272.9%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • BenchCAD 2.1

    Claude Fable 5.275.4%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • BenchCAD 2.1 (tools)

    Claude Fable 5.283.5%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HLE

    Claude Fable 5.274.2%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Claude Fable 5.273.2%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • PhysicianBench

    Claude Fable 5.264.4%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

Multilingual

  • GMMLU

    Claude Fable 5.296.0%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • MILU

    Claude Fable 5.294.1%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1—

    Not directly comparable

31 public results · 0 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricingRead the methodologyOpen the model selector

Watch Claude Fable 5.2 vs Grok Build 0.1

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

Read a sample issue

Join 6,100+ subscribers.

Last updated November 9, 2026