Skip to main content
Radar

Every change to the models you run, with its source and its date. Releases, price changes, retirements, API changes, and incidents.Every change to the models you run, with its source.

Follow model changes
BenchLM

Claude Fable 5 vs Step 5 Preview

Decision reading

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.

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

Anthropic logo
Model A
Claude Fable 5

Anthropic

81.76/100

Supported · Public rank #5

90% interval 78.6–84.9

StepFun logo
Model B
Step 5 Preview

StepFun

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Updated September 21, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

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.

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Step 5 Preview

    Step 5 Preview has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

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

    Step 5 Preview

    Step 5 Preview has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Step 5 Preview

    Step 5 Preview has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    Step 5 Preview is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    Step 5 Preview is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented

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.

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

77.8Claude Fable 5—Step 5 Preview

Not comparable · BenchAlign

The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.

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

Open the coding leaderboardShortlist models for this job

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
1
Claude Fable 5 only
18
Step 5 Preview only
21
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

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

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5
75.4
Supported · #3/154
Step 5 Preview
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 5 vs 11 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5
77.8
Supported · #2/156
Step 5 Preview
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 10 vs 6 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5
77.6
#6/19
Step 5 Preview
78.5
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5
62.6
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Step 5 Preview
61.2
#28/49
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5
83.8
Supported · #2/186
Step 5 Preview
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5
Not ranked
Step 5 Preview
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5
77.0
#57/124
Step 5 Preview
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5
Not ranked
Step 5 Preview
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
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.

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
Step 5 Preview
$0.00235
Fits in one request

Step 5 Preview has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Fable 5
$0.65
Fits in one request
Step 5 Preview
$0.0581
Fits in one request

Step 5 Preview has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Claude Fable 5
$0.9
Fits in one request
Step 5 Preview
$0.057
Fits in one request

Step 5 Preview has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Specification differences

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

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

Step 5 Preview

$0.05 per 1M cached input tokens

StepFun pricing and rate limits

Reasoning profile

Claude Fable 5

Reasoning

Step 5 Preview

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Fable 5

Proprietary

Step 5 Preview

Pending

License

Claude Fable 5

Proprietary

Step 5 Preview

Pending

Release date

Claude Fable 5

2026-06-09

Step 5 Preview

2026-09-20

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
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.65 vs $0.0581. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.9 vs $0.057.
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 evidence40 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 3.0

    Claude Fable 534.0%
    Source
    Step 5 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Fable 584.3%
    Source
    Step 5 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Claude Fable 585%
    Source
    Step 5 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Claude Fable 580.5%
    Source
    Step 5 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • ApprenticeBench

    Claude Fable 534%
    Source
    Step 5 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Claude Fable 5—
    Step 5 Preview85.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 4.0

    Claude Fable 5—
    Step 5 Preview33.30%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    Claude Fable 5—
    Step 5 Preview84.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    Claude Fable 5—
    Step 5 Preview44.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Claude Fable 5—
    Step 5 Preview74.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Claude Fable 5—
    Step 5 Preview85.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Claude Fable 5—
    Step 5 Preview59.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • APEX-Agents

    Claude Fable 5—
    Step 5 Preview37.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DRACO

    Claude Fable 5—
    Step 5 Preview83.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Claude Fable 5—
    Step 5 Preview88.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Agents' Last Exam

    Claude Fable 5—
    Step 5 Preview29.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude Fable 595%
    Source
    Step 5 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Fable 580%
    Source
    Step 5 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierSWE v2

    Claude Fable 547.0%
    Source
    Step 5 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Main

    Claude Fable 553.5%
    Source
    Step 5 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Fable 584.3%
    Source
    Step 5 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench31

    Claude Fable 570.6%
    Source
    Step 5 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    Claude Fable 570.5%
    Source
    Step 5 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • VulcanBench v3

    Claude Fable 589.5%
    Source
    Step 5 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Claude Fable 589.8%
    Source
    Step 5 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Claude Fable 595.0%
    Source
    Step 5 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    Claude Fable 5—
    Step 5 Preview67.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Claude Fable 5—
    Step 5 Preview85.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SciCode

    Claude Fable 5—
    Step 5 Preview58.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ProgramBench

    Claude Fable 5—
    Step 5 Preview80.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • sweMarathon

    Claude Fable 5—
    Step 5 Preview72.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MLS-Bench Lite

    Claude Fable 5—
    Step 5 Preview40.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • CritPt

    Claude Fable 5—
    Step 5 Preview20.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • Blueprint-Bench 2

    Claude Fable 538.6%
    Source
    Step 5 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • OfficeQA Pro

    Claude Fable 557.9%
    Source
    Step 5 Preview60.3%
    Source

    Step 5 Preview leads this result

  • MMMU-Pro

    Claude Fable 5—
    Step 5 Preview76%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Claude Fable 593.2%
    Source
    Step 5 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Claude Fable 591.5%
    Source
    Step 5 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Claude Fable 5—
    Step 5 Preview93.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Claude Fable 5—
    Step 5 Preview46.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Questions

Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Step 5 Preview?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5 or Step 5 Preview?

Step 5 Preview is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Step 5 Preview?

Step 5 Preview is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Claude Fable 5 or Step 5 Preview?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.035 on Claude Fable 5 and $0.00235 on Step 5 Preview; repository review costs $0.65 and $0.0581; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.9 and $0.057. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5 or Step 5 Preview?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 21, 2026

Watch Claude Fable 5 vs Step 5 Preview

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.