Skip to main content

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen3.7 Max

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 25 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

82.76/100
Margin
10.9pts
← winning
71.91/100
2 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #3 (Supported); Qwen3.7 Max #13 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and Qwen3.7 Max share 25 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 9 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 32 to Qwen3.7 Max.

Updated July 24, 2026
Shared results
25
Claude Fable 5 only
9
Qwen3.7 Max only
32
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Claude Fable 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.7 Max only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 25 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 2 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 BenchAlign aggregate, 82.76 to 71.91. 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 84.6 against 69.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Pro, 80% to 60.6%.

Claude Fable 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 1M for Qwen3.7 Max.

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 scores and score margins for Claude Fable 5 and Qwen3.7 Max
CategoryClaude Fable 5ΔQwen3.7 Max
AgenticClaude Fable 584.6Margin 14.9Qwen3.7 Max69.7
CodingClaude Fable 589.2Margin 11.3Qwen3.7 Max77.9
ReasoningClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max90.4
KnowledgeClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max64.2
MathClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max97.1
MultilingualClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max87.0
MultimodalClaude Fable 557.9MarginNo overlapQwen3.7 MaxNot measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max84.4

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Fable 5B · Qwen3.7 Max
  1. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 80%B 60.6%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 19.4
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Fable 5 scored 80%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 60.6%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.
  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 84.3%B 69.7%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 14.6
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Fable 5 scored 84.3%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 69.7%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.
  3. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 95%B 80.4%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 14.6
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Fable 5 scored 95%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 80.4%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Fable 5Qwen3.7 MaxComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Fable 5$10 input / $50 outputQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Fable 5Not availableQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Fable 5Not availableQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Fable 51M+Qwen3.7 Max1MClaude Fable 5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Fable 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3.7 MaxResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 84.3%69.7%Claude Fable 5 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 85%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 17471271Claude Fable 5 leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 52.8%30.6%Claude Fable 5 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 98.5%94.7%Claude Fable 5 leads
GDPval-AASource 62.3%38.6%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA BriefcaseSource 1574912Claude Fable 5 leads
AA AutomationBenchSource 48.6%Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 51.1%45.0%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA Harvey LABSource 93.6%83.4%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA Tau3 BankingSource 26.8%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource 62.9%50.8%Claude Fable 5 leads
aaTerminalBench21Source 84.6%74.5%Claude Fable 5 leads
QwenClawBenchSource 64.3%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource 1568Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 65.2%Not comparable
BFCL v4Source 75.0%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 76.4%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource 47.9%Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource 53.5%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 64.27%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 18.7%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource 42.5%Not comparable
CodingClaude Fable 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3.7 MaxResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 95%80.4%Claude Fable 5 leads
SWE-bench ProSource 80%60.6%Claude Fable 5 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 53.5%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 84.3%69.7%Claude Fable 5 leads
cursorBench31Source 70.6%Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 70.5%Not comparable
VulcanBench v3Source 87.0%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 76.5%66.0%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 60.2%48.8%Claude Fable 5 leads
SWE MultilingualSource 78.3%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource 47.2%Not comparable
SciCodeSource 53.5%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource 91.6%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3.7 MaxResult
AA-LCRSource 70.0%69.0%Claude Fable 5 leads
CritPtSource 28.6%13.4%Claude Fable 5 leads
MRCRv2Source 90.4%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3.7 MaxResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 59.9%46.0%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.6%92.3%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-HLESource 53.3%38.1%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 40.2%14.1%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 61.4%30.1%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 54.9%22.9%Qwen3.7 Max leads
GPQASource 92.4%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 92.4%Not comparable
HLESource 41.4%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 89.6%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource 95%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 73.6%Not comparable
MMMLUSource 90.3%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3.7 MaxResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source 97.1%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource 90.0%Not comparable
ApexSource 44.5%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3.7 MaxResult
MMLU-ProXSource 87%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source 59.0%Not comparable
INCLUDESource 86.2%Not comparable
MAXIFESource 89.2%Not comparable
PolyMathSource 86.5%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3.7 MaxResult
Blueprint-Bench 2Source 38.6%Not comparable
OfficeQA ProSource 57.9%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13321293Claude Fable 5 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3.7 MaxResult
AA-IFBenchSource 63.5%80.5%Qwen3.7 Max leads
IFEvalSource 94.3%Not comparable
IFBenchSource 79.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Claude Fable 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 82.76 to 71.91. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Pro, where the scores are 80% and 60.6%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Claude Fable 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 77.9. 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 Qwen3.7 Max?

Claude Fable 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.6 versus 69.7. Inside this category, AA Briefcase is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 24, 2026