Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Updated October 20, 2026. Rank says Claude Fable 5 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Decision reading

Claude Fable 5 has the higher public score, 81.35 versus 53.74, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. 5 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A

Claude Fable 5

Anthropic

81.35/100

Supported · Public rank #7

90% interval 78.4–84.3

Model B

Qwen3.7 Plus

Alibaba

53.74/100

Supported · Public rank #77

90% interval 42.7–64.8

Shared results: 5
Claude Fable 5 only: 20
Qwen3.7 Plus only: 48
Like-for-like categories: 1 / 8

Supported: Claude Fable 5 and Qwen3.7 PlusHow the comparison works

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.

Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Claude Fable 5
Claude Fable 5 has the higher public agentic point estimate, 75.8 to 35.1, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Confidence: limited

Show secondary and unsupported calls

Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Qwen3.7 Plus is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
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

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

Pick the job you would use them for

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

71.3Claude Fable 540.3Qwen3.7 Plus

Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8

Claude Fable 5 has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboard Shortlist models for this job

Same basis rules as the category table below

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.

FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Math
Normalized gap 52.6
Claude Fable 5:87.018%
Qwen3.7 Plus:34.386%
Shared source
SWE-bench ProCoding
Normalized gap 22.4
Claude Fable 5:80%
Qwen3.7 Plus:57.6%
Claude Fable 5 source Qwen3.7 Plus source
SWE-bench VerifiedCoding
Normalized gap 17.3
Claude Fable 5:95%
Qwen3.7 Plus:77.7%
Claude Fable 5 source Qwen3.7 Plus source
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic
Normalized gap 11.7
Claude Fable 5:85%
Qwen3.7 Plus:73.3%
Claude Fable 5 source Qwen3.7 Plus source

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 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: 75.8; Supported · #6/131
Qwen3.7 Plus: 35.1; Supported · #83/131
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 11 public rows
Reading: Claude Fable 5 leads

Coding

Directional only

Claude Fable 5: 71.3; Supported · #7/152
Qwen3.7 Plus: 40.3; Estimated · #66/152
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 10 vs 7 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only

Claude Fable 5: 82.6; Supported · #6/187
Qwen3.7 Plus: 53.7; Estimated · #67/187
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 7 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Instruction following

Directional only

Claude Fable 5: 77.1; #63/149
Qwen3.7 Plus: 92.8; #17/149
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable

Claude Fable 5: 84.3; Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Qwen3.7 Plus: 80.0; Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable

Claude Fable 5: 66.0; Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Qwen3.7 Plus: 82.0; #16/55
Basis: Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Claude Fable 5: Not ranked
Qwen3.7 Plus: 95.7; #3/17
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

Claude Fable 5: 96.0; Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Qwen3.7 Plus: 64.3; Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category scores with the server-provided evidence basis for Claude Fable 5 and Qwen3.7 Plus
Category	Claude Fable 5	Qwen3.7 Plus	Basis	Reading
Agentic	75.8Supported · #6/131	35.1Supported · #83/131	Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 11 public rows	Claude Fable 5 leads
Coding	71.3Supported · #7/152	40.3Estimated · #66/152	Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 10 vs 7 public rows	Directional only
Knowledge	82.6Supported · #6/187	53.7Estimated · #67/187	Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 7 public rows	Directional only
Instruction following	77.1#63/149	92.8#17/149	Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Directional only
Reasoning	84.3Unranked · 4 rankable rows	80.0Unranked · 3 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multimodal	66.0Unranked · 2 rankable rows	82.0#16/55	Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not ranked	95.7#3/17	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Math	96.0Unranked · 2 rankable rows	64.3Unranked · 4 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows	Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

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
Qwen3.7 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.7 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
Qwen3.7 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.7 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
Qwen3.7 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request; Cached-input rate unavailable

Qwen3.7 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

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

SpecificationClaude Fable 5Qwen3.7 Plus

Context window

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

Claude Fable 5

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.7 Plus

API model ID

Claude Fable 5

claude-fable-5

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.7 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

Qwen3.7 Plus

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Claude Fable 5

text, image

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.7 Plus

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude Fable 5

text

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.7 Plus

Not sourced

Provider availability

Claude Fable 5

Generally Available · Claude API

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.7 Plus

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude Fable 5

Reasoning

Qwen3.7 Plus

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Fable 5

Proprietary

Qwen3.7 Plus

Proprietary

License

Claude Fable 5

Proprietary

Qwen3.7 Plus

Proprietary

Release date

Claude Fable 5

2026-06-09

Qwen3.7 Plus

2026-06-03

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, 81.35 versus 53.74, 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.

Questions

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

Claude Fable 5 has the higher public score, 81.35 versus 53.74, 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 Qwen3.7 Plus?

Claude Fable 5 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 71.3 to 40.3. Qwen3.7 Plus is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Claude Fable 5 has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 75.8 to 35.1, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which costs less, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.7 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 Qwen3.7 Plus?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence73 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 3.0
Claude Fable 534.0%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Fable 584.3%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Fable 585%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus73.3%
Source
Claude Fable 5 leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Fable 580.5%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus52.8%
Source
Claude Fable 5 leads this result
ApprenticeBench
Claude Fable 534%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
MazeBench
Claude Fable 511%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus70.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus61.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus62.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
BFCL v4
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus72.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus73.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus45.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus62.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus81.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus2.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

SWE-bench Verified
Claude Fable 595%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus77.7%
Source
Claude Fable 5 leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Fable 580%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus57.6%
Source
Claude Fable 5 leads this result
FrontierSWE v2
Claude Fable 547.0%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Fable 553.5%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Fable 584.3%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
cursorBench31
Claude Fable 570.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
CursorBench 3.2
Claude Fable 570.5%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Claude Fable 589.5%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Fable 589.8%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Claude Fable 595.0%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus70.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus75.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus41.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
SciCode
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus51.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus89.6%
Source
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

ARC-AGI-1
Claude Fable 598.50%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-2
Claude Fable 589.2%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
CritPt
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus9.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
MRCRv2
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus91.7%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

ParseBench
Claude Fable 570.78%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Blueprint-Bench 2
Claude Fable 538.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
OfficeQA Pro
Claude Fable 557.9%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus79%
Source
Not directly comparable
MathVision
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus85.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
ERQA
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus69.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus71.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus79.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus81.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMSearch-Plus
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus41.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus86.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus91.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
OCRBench V2
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus70.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
ODINW13
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus51.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus88.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus85.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus87.4%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Claude Fable 593.2%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Claude Fable 591.5%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
GPQA
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
HLE
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus34.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus88.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus94.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus71.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMMLU
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus89.0%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multilingual

MMLU-ProX
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus85.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
NOVA-63
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus58.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
INCLUDE
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus83.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
MAXIFE
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus88.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
PolyMath
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus84.0%
Source
Not directly comparable

Instruction following

IFEval
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus94.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
IFBench
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus79.1%
Source
Not directly comparable

Math

FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Shared source
Claude Fable 587.018%
Qwen3.7 Plus34.386%
Claude Fable 5 leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Claude Fable 590.200%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus92.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
IMOAnswerBench
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus86.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
Apex
Claude Fable 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus22.7%
Source
Not directly comparable

73 public results · 5 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Watch Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus

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

Read a sample issue

Join 5,600+ readers.

Last updated October 20, 2026

Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Decision reading

Which one for your work

Agentic work

Coding work

Long documents

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

Which one for a specific job

What is actually comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Category results, on a stated basis

Agentic

Coding

Knowledge

Instruction following

Reasoning

Multimodal

Multilingual

Math

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

If you already use one of these models

Questions

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

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

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Which costs less, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Multimodal

Knowledge

Multilingual

Instruction following

Math

Related comparisons

Watch Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus