Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Fable 5
95
Ornith-1.0-9B
52
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #2 · Ornith-1.0-9B unranked
Pick Claude Fable 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ornith-1.0-9B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+42.1 difference
Coding
+16.2 difference
Claude Fable 5
Ornith-1.0-9B
$10 / $50
$0 / $0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M+
262K
Pick Claude Fable 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ornith-1.0-9B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Claude Fable 5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 95 to 52. 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 43.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 84.3% to 43.1%.
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-1.0-9B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Fable 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 262K for Ornith-1.0-9B.
Claude Fable 5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 95 to 52. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 84.3% and 43.1%.
Claude Fable 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 85.6 versus 69.4. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 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 43.1. 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.