Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Fable 5
95
Ornith-1.0-397B
96
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #2 · Ornith-1.0-397B unranked
Pick Ornith-1.0-397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Fable 5 only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you need the larger 1M+ context window.
Agentic
+7.7 difference
Coding
+3.2 difference
Claude Fable 5
Ornith-1.0-397B
$10 / $50
$0 / $0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M+
262K
Pick Ornith-1.0-397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Fable 5 only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you need the larger 1M+ context window.
Ornith-1.0-397B finishes one point ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 96 to 95. That is enough to call, but not enough to treat as a blowout. This matchup comes down to a few meaningful edges rather than one model dominating the board.
Claude Fable 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Ornith-1.0-397B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Fable 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 262K for Ornith-1.0-397B.
Ornith-1.0-397B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 96 to 95. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 95% and 82.4%.
Claude Fable 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 85.6 versus 82.4. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude Fable 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 85.2 versus 77.5. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 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.