Model comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Head-to-head evidence from 21 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #3 (Supported); Qwen3.7 Plus #26 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and Qwen3.7 Plus share 21 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 13 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 48 to Qwen3.7 Plus.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 21
- Claude Fable 5 only
- 13
- Qwen3.7 Plus only
- 48
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Claude Fable 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.7 Plus only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 21 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 3 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 66.3. 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 89.2 against 75.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Pro, 80% to 57.6%. Qwen3.7 Plus does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Claude Fable 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 1M for Qwen3.7 Plus.
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 | Claude Fable 5 | Δ | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Claude Fable 557.9 | Margin→ 23.6 | Qwen3.7 Plus81.5 |
| Coding | Claude Fable 589.2 | Margin← 13.6 | Qwen3.7 Plus75.6 |
| Agentic | Claude Fable 584.6 | Margin← 12.9 | Qwen3.7 Plus71.7 |
| Reasoning | Claude Fable 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus91.7 |
| Knowledge | Claude Fable 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus60.1 |
| Math | Claude Fable 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus92.9 |
| Multilingual | Claude Fable 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus85.4 |
| Inst. Following | Claude Fable 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus84.5 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 80%B 57.6%Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 22.4SWE-bench Pro: Claude Fable 5 scored 80%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 57.6%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 95%B 77.7%Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 17.3SWE-bench Verified: Claude Fable 5 scored 95%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 77.7%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 84.3%B 70.3%Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 14Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Fable 5 scored 84.3%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 70.3%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
OSWorld-Verified
AgenticA 85%B 73.3%Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 11.7OSWorld-Verified: Claude Fable 5 scored 85%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 73.3%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Fable 5$10 input / $50 output | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Fable 5Not available | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Fable 5Not available | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Fable 51M+ | Qwen3.7 Plus1M | Claude Fable 5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Fable 5 wins23 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 84.3% | 70.3% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 85% | 73.3% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1747 | 943 | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 52.8% | 20.8% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 98.5% | 93% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 62.3% | 22.1% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1574 | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 48.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 51.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 26.8% | — | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 62.9% | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 84.6% | — | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 61.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1536 | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 62.7% | Not comparable |
| BFCL v4Source | — | 72.9% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 73.2% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 45.6% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| AndroidWorldSource | — | 81.0% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 22.4% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 2.8% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Fable 5 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 95% | 77.7% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 80% | 57.6% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 53.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 84.3% | 70.3% | 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% | 55.9% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 60.2% | 45.5% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 75.8% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 41.1% | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 51.3% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 89.6% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 59.9% | 39.0% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.6% | 90.0% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 53.3% | 33.4% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 40.2% | 2.4% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 61.4% | 22.2% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 54.9% | 25.5% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| GPQASource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 34.7% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 88.5% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.5% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 71.4% | Not comparable |
| MMMLUSource | — | 89.0% | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
Multilingual5 benchmarks
MultimodalQwen3.7 Plus wins19 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blueprint-Bench 2Source | 38.6% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQA ProSource | 57.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1332 | 1288 | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 79% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 85.9% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 69.8% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | — | 71.0% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 79.0% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 81.7% | Not comparable |
| MMSearch-PlusSource | — | 41.4% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 86.9% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | — | 91.4% | Not comparable |
| OCRBench V2Source | — | 70.7% | Not comparable |
| ODINW13Source | — | 51.1% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 88.0% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 85.4% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 87.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 80.5% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Claude Fable 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 82.76 to 66.3. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Pro, where the scores are 80% and 57.6%.
Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Claude Fable 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 75.6. 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 Plus?
Claude Fable 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.6 versus 71.7. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.5 versus 57.9. Inside this category, Design Arena Website is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.