Model comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs Inkling
Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 unranked; Inkling #17
BenchAlign evidence: Claude Fable 5 supported; Inkling not scored. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and Inkling share 4 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 29 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 12 to Inkling.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 4
- Claude Fable 5 only
- 29
- Inkling only
- 12
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Claude Fable 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Inkling only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 4 shared benchmark results across 2 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 Fable 5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 91 to 69. 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 coding, where it averages 89.2 against 68.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Pro, 80% to 54.3%. Inkling does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Claude Fable 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.87 input / $4.68 output per 1M tokens for Inkling. That is roughly 10.7x on output cost alone. Claude Fable 5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Inkling 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 1M for Inkling.
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 | Inkling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Fable 589.2 | Margin← 20.6 | Inkling68.6 |
| Multimodal | Claude Fable 557.9 | Margin→ 18.6 | Inkling76.5 |
| Agentic | Claude Fable 584.6 | Margin← 15.2 | Inkling69.4 |
| Knowledge | Claude Fable 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling51.7 |
| Math | Claude Fable 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling97.1 |
| Inst. Following | Claude Fable 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling79.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 80%B 54.3%Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 25.7SWE-bench Pro: Claude Fable 5 scored 80%; Inkling scored 54.3%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 84.3%B 63.8%Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 20.5Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Fable 5 scored 84.3%; Inkling scored 63.8%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 95%B 77.6%Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 17.4SWE-bench Verified: Claude Fable 5 scored 95%; Inkling scored 77.6%. 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 | Inkling | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Fable 5$10 input / $50 output | Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 output | Inkling has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Fable 5Not available | InklingNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Fable 5Not available | InklingNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Fable 51M+ | Inkling1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Fable 5 wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 84.3% | 63.8% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 85% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1760 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 52.8% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 98.5% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 63.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1583 | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 48.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 51.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 14.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 26.8% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 77.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 74.1% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource | — | 1258 | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Fable 5 wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 95% | 77.6% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 80% | 54.3% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| FrontierCodeSource | 53.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 84.3% | 63.8% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| cursorBench31Source | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 70.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 76.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 62.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 60.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | 84.6% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 59.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 53.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 40.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 61.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 54.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 87.9% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 87.9% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 46% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 30% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | — | 97.1% | Not comparable |
MultimodalInkling wins6 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Inkling?
Claude Fable 5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 91 to 69. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Pro, where the scores are 80% and 54.3%.
Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5 or Inkling?
Claude Fable 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 68.6. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Inkling?
Claude Fable 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.6 versus 69.4. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Inkling?
Inkling has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.5 versus 57.9. Claude Fable 5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.