Agentic
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- 84.6
- GPT Realtime mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Model comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs GPT Realtime mini
Updated August 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
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 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
Claude Fable 5 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
GPT Realtime mini
GPT Realtime mini 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
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
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. GPT Realtime mini does not fit this workload in one request.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K 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. GPT Realtime mini does not fit this workload in one request.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
11 Claude Fable 5 only
- Shared results
- 0
- Claude Fable 5 only
- 11
- GPT Realtime mini only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
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
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- 89.2
- GPT Realtime mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not measured
- GPT Realtime mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not measured
- GPT Realtime mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not measured
- GPT Realtime mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not measured
- GPT Realtime mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- 57.9
- GPT Realtime mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not measured
- GPT Realtime mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Fable 5 | GPT Realtime mini | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 84.6 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 89.2 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 57.9 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | 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.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
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
- $0.035
- Fits in one request
- GPT Realtime mini
- $0.0018
- Fits in one request
GPT Realtime mini has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Fable 5
- $0.65
- Fits in one request
- GPT Realtime mini
- $0.0372
- Does not fit in one request
GPT Realtime mini does not fit this workload in one request.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Fable 5
- $0.9
- Fits in one request
- GPT Realtime mini
- $0.048
- Does not fit in one request
GPT Realtime mini does not fit this workload in one request.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Fable 5GPT Realtime mini
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Fable 5
GPT Realtime mini
API model ID
Claude Fable 5
claude-fable-5
Anthropic model overviewGPT Realtime mini
gpt-realtime-mini
OpenAI model documentationCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Fable 5
$1 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude API pricingGPT Realtime mini
$0.06 per 1M cached input tokens
OpenAI model documentationDocumented inputs
Claude Fable 5
text, image
Anthropic model overviewGPT Realtime mini
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Fable 5
GPT Realtime mini
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Fable 5
Generally Available · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewGPT Realtime mini
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Fable 5
Reasoning
GPT Realtime mini
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Fable 5
Proprietary
GPT Realtime mini
Proprietary
License
Claude Fable 5
Proprietary
GPT Realtime mini
Proprietary
Release date
Claude Fable 5
2026-06-09
GPT Realtime mini
Not sourced
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: $0.65 vs $0.0372. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.9 vs $0.048.
- Context tradeoff
- Claude Fable 5 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 evidence11 rows
Agentic
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Fable 595%SourceGPT Realtime mini—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Fable 580%SourceGPT Realtime mini—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Fable 553.5%SourceGPT Realtime mini—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Fable 584.3%SourceGPT Realtime mini—Not directly comparable
cursorBench31
Claude Fable 570.6%SourceGPT Realtime mini—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Claude Fable 570.5%SourceGPT Realtime mini—Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Claude Fable 587.0%SourceGPT Realtime mini—Not directly comparable
Multimodal
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or GPT Realtime mini?
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 or GPT Realtime mini?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5 or GPT Realtime mini?
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 or GPT Realtime mini?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.035 on Claude Fable 5 and $0.0018 on GPT Realtime mini; repository review costs $0.65 and $0.0372; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.9 and $0.048. GPT Realtime mini does not fit this workload in one request.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5 or GPT Realtime mini?
Claude Fable 5 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 32K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 4, 2026
Watch Claude Fable 5 vs GPT Realtime mini
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.