Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Fable 5
96
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
78
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #2 · Mistral Medium 3.5 128B unranked
Pick Claude Fable 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Coding
+8.0 difference
Claude Fable 5
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
$10 / $50
$1.5 / $7.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M+
256K
Pick Claude Fable 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Claude Fable 5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 96 to 78. 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 85.6 against 77.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 95% to 77.6%.
Claude Fable 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.50 input / $7.50 output per 1M tokens for Mistral Medium 3.5 128B. That is roughly 6.7x on output cost alone. Claude Fable 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 256K for Mistral Medium 3.5 128B.
Claude Fable 5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 96 to 78. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 95% and 77.6%.
Claude Fable 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 85.6 versus 77.6. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.