Model A

Anthropic

80.9/100

Supported · Public rank #3

90% interval 78.7–83.1

Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B

Qwen3.6 Plus

Alibaba

61.49/100

Supported · Public rank #64

90% interval 53.0–69.9

Decision reading

Claude Fable 5 has the higher public score, 80.9 versus 61.49, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.

8 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on X LinkedInSocial card CSV JSON

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.

Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Claude Fable 5
Claude Fable 5 leads on the public coding lane, 76.9 to 47, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Confidence: stronger
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Claude Fable 5
Claude Fable 5 leads on the public agentic lane, 74.8 to 36.4, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Confidence: stronger

Show secondary and unsupported calls

Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
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.

10 Claude Fable 5 only

8 Shared

40 Qwen3.6 Plus only

Shared results: 8
Claude Fable 5 only: 10
Qwen3.6 Plus only: 40
Like-for-like categories: 3 / 8

1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Like-for-like

Claude Fable 5: 74.8; Supported · #3/151
Qwen3.6 Plus: 36.4; Supported · #128/151
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 13 public rows
Reading: Claude Fable 5 leads

Coding

Like-for-like

Claude Fable 5: 76.9; Supported · #2/183
Qwen3.6 Plus: 47.0; Supported · #92/183
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 10 vs 7 public rows
Reading: Claude Fable 5 leads

Knowledge

Like-for-like

Claude Fable 5: 83.5; Supported · #2/181
Qwen3.6 Plus: 54.7; Supported · #63/181
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 8 public rows
Reading: Claude Fable 5 leads

Instruction following

Directional only

Claude Fable 5: 78.3; #54/120
Qwen3.6 Plus: 85.5; #41/120
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable

Claude Fable 5: 76.2; #11/22
Qwen3.6 Plus: 59.3; Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

Claude Fable 5: Not ranked
Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.4; #4/7
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 4 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Claude Fable 5: Not ranked
Qwen3.6 Plus: 69.7; #4/12
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable

Claude Fable 5: 62.5; Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Qwen3.6 Plus: 66.3; #22/48
Basis: Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category scores with the server-provided evidence basis for Claude Fable 5 and Qwen3.6 Plus
Category	Claude Fable 5	Qwen3.6 Plus	Basis	Reading
Agentic	74.8Supported · #3/151	36.4Supported · #128/151	Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 4 vs 13 public rows	Claude Fable 5 leads
Coding	76.9Supported · #2/183	47.0Supported · #92/183	Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 10 vs 7 public rows	Claude Fable 5 leads
Knowledge	83.5Supported · #2/181	54.7Supported · #63/181	Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 2 vs 8 public rows	Claude Fable 5 leads
Instruction following	78.3#54/120	85.5#41/120	Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Directional only
Reasoning	76.2#11/22	59.3Unranked · 4 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Math	Not ranked	62.4#4/7	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 4 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not ranked	69.7#4/12	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multimodal	62.5Unranked · 2 rankable rows	66.3#22/48	Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows	Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

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.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

SWE-bench Pro
Coding
Claude Fable 5: 80%Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.6%Normalized gap 23.4Claude Fable 5 source Qwen3.6 Plus source
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Claude Fable 5: 84.3%Qwen3.6 Plus: 61.6%Normalized gap 22.7Claude Fable 5 source Qwen3.6 Plus source
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
Claude Fable 5: 95%Qwen3.6 Plus: 78.8%Normalized gap 16.2Claude Fable 5 source Qwen3.6 Plus source
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Coding
Claude Fable 5: 89.8%Qwen3.6 Plus: 86.0%Normalized gap 3.8Claude Fable 5 source Qwen3.6 Plus source
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Knowledge
Claude Fable 5: 91.5%Qwen3.6 Plus: 87.7%Normalized gap 3.8Claude Fable 5 source Qwen3.6 Plus source

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
Qwen3.6 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.6 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Fable 5: $0.65; Fits in one request
Qwen3.6 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.6 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Claude Fable 5: $0.9; Fits in one request
Qwen3.6 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request; Cached-input rate unavailable

Qwen3.6 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

SpecificationClaude Fable 5Qwen3.6 Plus

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Claude Fable 5

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.6 Plus

API model ID

Claude Fable 5

claude-fable-5

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.6 Plus

Not sourced

Cached-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 pricing

Qwen3.6 Plus

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Claude Fable 5

text, image

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.6 Plus

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude Fable 5

text

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.6 Plus

Not sourced

Provider availability

Claude Fable 5

Generally Available · Claude API

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.6 Plus

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude Fable 5

Reasoning

Qwen3.6 Plus

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Fable 5

Proprietary

Qwen3.6 Plus

Proprietary

License

Claude Fable 5

Proprietary

Qwen3.6 Plus

Proprietary

Release date

Claude Fable 5

2026-06-09

Qwen3.6 Plus

2026-04-02

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: Claude Fable 5 has the higher public score, 80.9 versus 61.49, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
Workload cost: A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff: Both models list 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 evidence58 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 3.0
Claude Fable 534.0%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Fable 584.3%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus61.6%
Source
Claude Fable 5 leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Fable 585%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Fable 580.5%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus53.2%
Source
Claude Fable 5 leads this result
Claw-Eval
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus58.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus57.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus70.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus44.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus41.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus39.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus48.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
MCP-Tasks
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus74.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
WideResearch
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus74.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus50.60%
Source
Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus18.0%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

SWE-bench Verified
Claude Fable 595%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus78.8%
Source
Claude Fable 5 leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Fable 580%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus56.6%
Source
Claude Fable 5 leads this result
FrontierSWE v2
Claude Fable 548.0%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Fable 553.5%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Fable 584.3%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
cursorBench31
Claude Fable 570.6%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Claude Fable 570.5%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Claude Fable 589.5%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Fable 589.8%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus86.0%
Source
Claude Fable 5 leads this result
SWE-bench (Vals)
Claude Fable 595.0%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus73.4%
Source
Claude Fable 5 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus73.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus87.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus25.56%
Source
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

AI-Needle
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus68.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
LongBench v2
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus62%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Claude Fable 593.2%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus87.4%
Source
Claude Fable 5 leads this result
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Claude Fable 591.5%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus87.7%
Source
Claude Fable 5 leads this result
GPQA
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus90.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus71.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus88.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus94.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
C-Eval
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus93.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
HLE
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus28.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Math

AIME26
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus95.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus96.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus94.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus87.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus83.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus26.207%
Source
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus8.333%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multilingual

MMLU-ProX
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus84.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
NOVA-63
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus57.9%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

Blueprint-Bench 2
Claude Fable 538.6%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
OfficeQA Pro
Claude Fable 557.9%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
MMMU
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus86.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus78.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
MathVision
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus88.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus84.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus68.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus81.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
V*
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus96.9%
Source
Not directly comparable

Instruction following

IFEval
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus94.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
IFBench
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.6 Plus75.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Claude Fable 5 has the higher public score, 80.9 versus 61.49, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.

Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Claude Fable 5 leads the public coding lane, 76.9 to 47, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Claude Fable 5 leads the public agentic tasks lane, 74.8 to 36.4, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.

Which costs less, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 4, 2026

Watch Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen3.6 Plus

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Which one for your work

Coding work

Agentic work

Long documents

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

What is actually comparable

Category results, on a stated basis

Agentic

Coding

Knowledge

Instruction following

Reasoning

Math

Multilingual

Multimodal

Shape of the matched evidence

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Knowledge

Math

Multilingual

Multimodal

Instruction following

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Which costs less, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Related comparisons

Watch Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen3.6 Plus