Model comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Opus 5
Head-to-head evidence from 21 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #3 (Supported); Claude Opus 5 #1 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and Claude Opus 5 share 21 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 13 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 58 to Claude Opus 5.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 21
- Claude Fable 5 only
- 13
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 58
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Fable 5 only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 21 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Opus 5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 85.88 to 82.76. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 5's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 66.9 against 57.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is OfficeQA Pro, 57.9% to 66.9%.
Claude Fable 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Opus 5. That is roughly 2.0x on output cost alone.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Claude Fable 5 | Δ | Claude Opus 5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Claude Fable 557.9 | Margin→ 9.0 | Claude Opus 566.9 |
| Agentic | Claude Fable 584.6 | Margin→ 6.2 | Claude Opus 590.8 |
| Coding | Claude Fable 589.2 | Margin→ 0.3 | Claude Opus 589.5 |
| Reasoning | Claude Fable 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 590.4 |
| Knowledge | Claude Fable 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 564.7 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
OfficeQA Pro
MultimodalA 57.9%B 66.9%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 9OfficeQA Pro: Claude Fable 5 scored 57.9%; Claude Opus 5 scored 66.9%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 95%B 96%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 1SWE-bench Verified: Claude Fable 5 scored 95%; Claude Opus 5 scored 96%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 80%B 79.2%Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 0.8SWE-bench Pro: Claude Fable 5 scored 80%; Claude Opus 5 scored 79.2%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5 | Claude Opus 5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Fable 5$10 input / $50 output | Claude Opus 5$5 input / $25 output | Claude Opus 5 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Fable 5Not available | Claude Opus 5Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Fable 5Not available | Claude Opus 5Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Fable 51M+ | Claude Opus 5Not available | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 5 wins31 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 84.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 85% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1747 | 1861 | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 52.8% | 55.3% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 98.5% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 62.3% | 68.0% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1574 | 1720 | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 48.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 51.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 26.8% | 30.3% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 62.9% | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 84.6% | 89.1% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| FrontierBench v0.1Source | — | 43.3% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 90.8% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | — | 64.7% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 95.0% | Not comparable |
| DRACOSource | — | 88.6% | Not comparable |
| BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)Source | — | 93.6% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 70.6% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 85.8% | Not comparable |
| MCP-Atlas claim coverageSource | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | — | 23.58% | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | — | 93.74% | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | — | 11.7% | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | — | 94.1% | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon-VerifiedSource | — | 80.6% | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass@3Source | — | 87.0% | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass³Source | — | 73.1% | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified avg. turnsSource | — | 23.5 turns | Not comparable |
| AutomationBenchSource | — | 26.0% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 5 wins15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 95% | 96% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 80% | 79.2% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 53.5% | 53.4% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 84.3% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 70.5% | 70.0% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| VulcanBench v3Source | 87.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 76.5% | 78.0% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 60.2% | 55.7% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 89.5% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultimodalSource | — | 59.4% | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | — | 68.8% | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource | — | 63.6% | Not comparable |
| ProgramBench (episode 1)Source | — | 83.0% | Not comparable |
| ProgramBenchSource | — | 93.0% | Not comparable |
Reasoning5 benchmarks
Knowledge21 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 59.9% | 60.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.6% | 93.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 53.3% | 52.6% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 40.2% | 31.3% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 61.4% | 54.2% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 54.9% | 50.1% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| HLESource | — | 64.7% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 56.3% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (raw)Source | — | 67.1% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (length-adjusted)Source | — | 57.8% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | — | 59.8% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench Professional (raw)Source | — | 73.4% | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)Source | — | 90.1% | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)Source | — | 49.4% | Not comparable |
| SpatialBench VerifiedSource | — | 72.5% | Not comparable |
| SingleCellBenchSource | — | 60.6% | Not comparable |
| ProteinGym HardSource | — | 47.7% | Not comparable |
| Protein DesignSource | — | 42.5% | Not comparable |
| Organic chemistry V2Source | — | 61.6% | Not comparable |
| Protocols (troubleshooting)Source | — | 61.1% | Not comparable |
| Protocols (understanding)Source | — | 78.4% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multilingual3 benchmarks
MultimodalClaude Opus 5 wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blueprint-Bench 2Source | 38.6% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQA ProSource | 57.9% | 66.9% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1332 | — | Not comparable |
| Chartography (no tools)Source | — | 29.6% | Not comparable |
| Chartography (tools)Source | — | 83.0% | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)Source | — | 0.366 | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)Source | — | 0.821 | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (no tools)Source | — | 83.4% | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (tools)Source | — | 85.5% | Not comparable |
| OfficeQASource | — | 78.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 84.7% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 63.5% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Claude Opus 5?
Claude Opus 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 85.88 to 82.76. The biggest single separator in this matchup is OfficeQA Pro, where the scores are 57.9% and 66.9%.
Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5 or Claude Opus 5?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.5 versus 89.2. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Claude Opus 5?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 90.8 versus 84.6. Inside this category, AA Briefcase is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Claude Opus 5?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 66.9 versus 57.9. Inside this category, OfficeQA Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.