text model comparison
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Mythos 5.2
Claude Fable 5.2 and Claude Mythos 5.2 are both current text models, from Anthropic. Both cost $8 per 1M input tokens. In Anthropic's Claude Fable 5.2 launch table, Claude Fable 5.2 scores 74.6% on Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 and Claude Mythos 5.2 75.3%. Both accept 1,000,000 tokens of context.
Data verified November 10, 2026 · Dataset 2026-11-10
Side by side
Claude Fable 5.2 and Claude Mythos 5.2, line by line
Prices in effect today, compared at the same tier wherever both list one. The better value in each row is highlighted.
| Fact | Claude Fable 5.2 | Claude Mythos 5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Price | ||
| Price per 1M input tokens | $8 | $8 |
| Price per 1M output tokens | $40 | $40 |
| Independent benchmarks | ||
| GPQA Diamond | 93.9% (#12 of 43) | Not measured |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2) | 95.1% (#1 of 43) | Not measured |
| SimpleQA Verified | 94% (#1 of 40) | Not measured |
| Specs | ||
| Provider | Anthropic | Anthropic |
| Release date | November 9, 2026 | November 9, 2026 |
| Access | API only | limited access |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens |
| Max output | 128,000 tokens | 128,000 tokens |
| Input | text, image | text, image |
| Output | text | text |
No independent benchmark has scored both models yet. Each rank counts the current models scored on that benchmark.
Scores:Epoch AI · 2026-11-10
Provider results
What the labs report
Results tables a lab published with one of its models, where it lists both Claude Fable 5.2 and Claude Mythos 5.2. These are the lab's own figures, not independent measurements, and each table is read on its own: labs run benchmarks with different harnesses and budgets.
Anthropic, Claude Fable 5.2 launch table, November 9, 2026Anthropic · 2026-11-10
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | Claude Mythos 5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 | 74.6% | 75.3% (better) |
Anthropic's table from the Claude Fable 5.2 and Mythos 5.2 announcement, each model at its highest available effort, with Anthropic's safeguards on; competitor figures come from their developers' system cards or the benchmarks' leaderboards. On FrontierCode 2.0 Fable 5.2 and 5.1 ran at xhigh effort and Gemini 4 Carbon at medium. Anthropic gives a Mythos 5.2 score for Terminal-Bench-Science only. Left out here: Anthropic's own evaluations (CVE Rediscovery, de novo binder design, RoboDojo Sim), Irregular's CyScenarioBench, where each lab's score covers different tasks, and Artificial Analysis's AA-Briefcase.
Charts
Against every current text model
Where Claude Fable 5.2 and Claude Mythos 5.2 land among the current models of their task, on every independent benchmark, on price and on context.
Where each stands
Only Claude Fable 5.2 has a current GPQA Diamond score: #12 of 43. Each bar is the share of current models it beats.
Independent benchmarks
GPQA Diamond
Claude Fable 5.2:#12of 43
93.9% · ahead of 71%
Claude Mythos 5.2: Not scored
FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)
Claude Fable 5.2:#1of 43
95.1% · ahead of 100%
Claude Mythos 5.2: Not scored
SimpleQA Verified
Claude Fable 5.2:#1of 40
94% · ahead of 100%
Claude Mythos 5.2: Not scored
Price and context
Price per 1M input tokens
Claude Fable 5.2:#53of 61
$8 · cheaper than 12%
Claude Mythos 5.2:#53of 61
$8 · cheaper than 12%
Price per 1M output tokens
Claude Fable 5.2:#53of 61
$40 · cheaper than 12%
Claude Mythos 5.2:#53of 61
$40 · cheaper than 12%
Context window
Claude Fable 5.2:#28of 70
1M tokens · longer than 23%
Claude Mythos 5.2:#28of 70
1M tokens · longer than 23%
Cost
What each costs
Example workloads at each provider's listed rates, then every other rate either one lists. The cheaper figure in each row is highlighted.
The same work, priced
At each provider's listed rates.
10M input and 2M output tokens
The same price
- Claude Fable 5.2
- $160
- Claude Mythos 5.2
- $160
The same, with 9M of the input tokens cached
The same price
- Claude Fable 5.2
- $89.80
- Claude Mythos 5.2
- $89.80
The same, through the batch API
The same price
- Claude Fable 5.2
- $80
- Claude Mythos 5.2
- $80
| Workload or rate | Claude Fable 5.2 | Claude Mythos 5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Example workloads | ||
| 10M input and 2M output tokens | $160 | $160 |
| The same, with 9M of the input tokens cached | $89.80 | $89.80 |
| The same, through the batch API | $80 | $80 |
| Other listed rates | ||
| 1M input tokens, cached | $0.20 | $0.20 |
| 1M input tokens, 5-minute cache write | $10 | $10 |
| 1M input tokens, 1-hour cache write | $16 | $16 |
| 1M input tokens, batch | $4 | $4 |
| 1M output tokens, batch | $20 | $20 |
Your own bill will differ. These figures use list prices and example workloads. The AI Model Cost Audit reviews your real usage, shortlists models that score as well for each task for less, and estimates the savings.
Launch price $100, regular price $150
Verdict
When to choose each
Claude Fable 5.2
Where it leads
No measured lead over Claude Mythos 5.2 in this data.
Best for
- The hardest open-ended coding, research and agent runs, where Claude Opus 5.5 at high effort falls short
- Advising or orchestrating cheaper Claude models in a multi-agent setup
Watch out for
- Gemini 4 Carbon scores higher on AutomationBench in Anthropic's own table (53.9% against 51.4%)
- Safety classifiers block most penetration testing, exploit development and research biology requests and answer them with an older model (Claude Opus 4.8 for cybersecurity, Claude Opus 5 for biology); vetted organisations use Claude Mythos 5.2 for that work
- Anthropic recommends starting most coding and knowledge work on Claude Opus 5.5, at half the price, and moving up to Fable only when it falls short; Arena has not rated Fable 5.2 yet
Claude Mythos 5.2
Where it leads
No measured lead over Claude Fable 5.2 in this data.
Best for
- Vetted security teams finding, reproducing and fixing vulnerabilities
- Dual-use research in security or biology that Claude Fable 5.2's safeguards block
Watch out for
- Limited access: only organisations verified through Anthropic's programs, such as the Cyber Verification Program, can call it
- No independent benchmark has scored it; every number for it comes from Anthropic
From benchmark to production
Building on Claude Fable 5.2 or Claude Mythos 5.2?
Public scores rarely hold on your own data. We test both models on your real tasks, then build the agent or pipeline around the one that wins.
AI Model Cost AuditLaunch price $100, regular price $150What the audit includes
FAQ
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Mythos 5.2 FAQ
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.2 or Claude Mythos 5.2?
Both cost $8 per 1M input tokens. For 10M input and 2M output tokens, Claude Fable 5.2 costs $160 and Claude Mythos 5.2 $160 at standard rates.
Which is cheaper with prompt caching, Claude Fable 5.2 or Claude Mythos 5.2?
Claude Fable 5.2 charges $0.20 per 1M cached input tokens, 98% below its standard input rate, and Claude Mythos 5.2 $0.20, 98% below. With 9M of 10M input tokens cached and 2M output tokens, Claude Fable 5.2 costs $89.80 and Claude Mythos 5.2 $89.80.
How do Claude Fable 5.2 and Claude Mythos 5.2 compare in Anthropic's own results?
In the Claude Fable 5.2 launch table (November 9, 2026), Claude Mythos 5.2 leads on Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1, 75.3% to 74.6%. These are Anthropic's figures, not independent measurements.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5.2 or Claude Mythos 5.2?
Both accept 1,000,000 tokens of context. Both return up to 128,000 tokens per response.
Further reading
More on Claude Fable 5.2 and Claude Mythos 5.2
Articles on Claude Fable 5.2 and Claude Mythos 5.2
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Opus 5.5, GPT-6 Astra and Mythos 5.2November 10, 2026 · compares both
Related comparisons
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Opus 4.8
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Mythos 5.2
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Mythos 5.2
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
- Claude Mythos 5.1 vs Claude Mythos 5.2
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Mythos 5.2 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Fable 5.2
- Claude Mythos 5.2 vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Fable 5.2
- Claude Mythos 5.2 vs GPT-5.6 Cyber
Production evaluation
Choosing between Claude Fable 5.2 and Claude Mythos 5.2?
Public benchmarks narrow the shortlist. We run both on your own tasks, data and cost limits, then build the routing and review controls to run the winner in production.
- A head-to-head evaluation on your real workload
- Routing between models by cost and difficulty