Claude Fable 5 vs GLM-5

Pick Claude Fable 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GLM-5 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Claude Fable 5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 96 to 67. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Fable 5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 85.2 against 56.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 84.3% to 56.2%.

Claude Fable 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.00 input / $3.20 output per 1M tokens for GLM-5. That is roughly 15.6x on output cost alone. Claude Fable 5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while GLM-5 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Claude Fable 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 200K for GLM-5.