text model comparison
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Opus 4.8
Claude Fable 5.2 and Claude Opus 4.8 are both current text models, from Anthropic. Claude Opus 4.8 is 38% cheaper per 1M input tokens than Claude Fable 5.2, $5 vs $8. On GPQA Diamond, Claude Fable 5.2 scores 93.9% and Claude Opus 4.8 91% (Epoch AI, measured November 10, 2026). Both accept 1,000,000 tokens of context.
- Higher GPQA Diamond
- Claude Fable 5.293.9% against 91%
- Lower price per 1M input tokens
- Claude Opus 4.8$5 against $8
- Newer release
- Claude Fable 5.2Nov 2026 against May 2026
Data verified November 10, 2026 · Dataset 2026-11-10
Side by side
Claude Fable 5.2 and Claude Opus 4.8, 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 Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|
| Price | ||
| Price per 1M input tokens | $8 | $5 (better) |
| Price per 1M output tokens | $40 | $25 (better) |
| Independent benchmarks | ||
| GPQA Diamond | 93.9% (#12 of 43) (better) | 91% (#24 of 43) |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2) | 95.1% (#1 of 43) (better) | 80% (#17 of 43) |
| SimpleQA Verified | 94% (#1 of 40) (better) | 53% (#20 of 40) |
| Arena Text | Not measured | 1482 Elo (#16 of 53) |
| Arena WebDev | Not measured | 1555 Elo (#34 of 48) |
| LiveBench Overall | Not measured | 78.93 points (#2 of 4) |
| Specs | ||
| Provider | Anthropic | Anthropic |
| Release date | November 9, 2026 | May 28, 2026 |
| Access | API only | API only |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens |
| Max output | 128,000 tokens | Not reported |
| Input | text, image | text |
| Output | text | text |
Scores:Epoch AI · 2026-11-10Arena · 2026-11-10LiveBench · 2026-06-25
Charts
Against every current text model
Where Claude Fable 5.2 and Claude Opus 4.8 land among the current models of their task, on every independent benchmark, on price and on context.
Where each stands
On GPQA Diamond, Claude Fable 5.2 ranks #12 and Claude Opus 4.8 #24 of 43 current models. Each bar is the share of current models it beats: on score, price and context.
Independent benchmarks
Arena Text
Claude Fable 5.2: Not scored
Claude Opus 4.8:#16of 53
1,482 Elo · ahead of 69%
Arena WebDev
Claude Fable 5.2: Not scored
Claude Opus 4.8:#34of 48
1,555 Elo · ahead of 30%
GPQA Diamond
Claude Fable 5.2:#12of 43
93.9% · ahead of 71%
Claude Opus 4.8:#24of 43
91% · ahead of 45%
FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)
Claude Fable 5.2:#1of 43
95.1% · ahead of 100%
Claude Opus 4.8:#17of 43
80% · ahead of 62%
SimpleQA Verified
Claude Fable 5.2:#1of 40
94% · ahead of 100%
Claude Opus 4.8:#20of 40
53% · ahead of 51%
Price and context
Price per 1M input tokens
Claude Fable 5.2:#53of 61
$8 · cheaper than 12%
Claude Opus 4.8:#50of 61
$5 · cheaper than 15%
Price per 1M output tokens
Claude Fable 5.2:#53of 61
$40 · cheaper than 12%
Claude Opus 4.8:#50of 61
$25 · cheaper than 17%
Context window
Claude Fable 5.2:#28of 70
1M tokens · longer than 23%
Claude Opus 4.8:#28of 70
1M tokens · longer than 23%
Quality against price
Claude Opus 4.8 scores 1,482 at $10 (blended price per 1M tokens). The line joins the current models no other beats on both price and Arena Text score; hover any point to name it.
Quality against price: the data
| Model | Provider | Blended price per 1M tokens | Arena Text (Elo) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gemini 4 Carbon | $4 | 1,526 | |
| Gemini 4 Argon | $4 | 1,522 | |
| Muse Wonder | Meta | $8 | 1,511 |
| Claude Opus 5.5 | Anthropic | $8 | 1,506 |
| Claude Fable 5 | Anthropic | $20 | 1,504 |
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Anthropic | $20 | 1,503 |
| Gemini 3.8 Flash | $1.50 | 1,497 | |
| Muse Spark 1.3 | Meta | $2 | 1,496 |
| Claude Opus 5 | Anthropic | $10 | 1,490 |
| Kimi K3 | Moonshot Kimi | $6 | 1,487 |
| GPT-5.6 Sol | OpenAI | $8 | 1,485 |
| Qwen3.8-Max | Alibaba Qwen | $3 | 1,484 |
| Gemini 3.6 Flash | $3 | 1,483 | |
| GLM-5.3 | Z.ai | $2.15 | 1,483 |
| Claude Opus 4.8 | Anthropic | $10 | 1,482 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | OpenAI | $4 | 1,482 |
| GPT-5.5 | OpenAI | $11 | 1,481 |
| MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Xiaomi MiMo | $0.54 | 1,480 |
| GPT-5.4 | OpenAI | $5.63 | 1,475 |
| DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash | DeepSeek | $0.52 | 1,475 |
| GPT-6 Astra | OpenAI | $20 | 1,474 |
| GLM-5.3-Flash | Z.ai | $0.24 | 1,474 |
| Gemini 3 Flash Preview | $1.13 | 1,473 | |
| Grok 4.20 | xAI | $1.56 | 1,472 |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Anthropic | $4 | 1,472 |
| GPT-5.6 Terra | OpenAI | $4.50 | 1,468 |
| Grok 4.5 | xAI | $3 | 1,466 |
| DeepSeek-V4-Pro | DeepSeek | $1.98 | 1,464 |
| Claude Sonnet 5 | Anthropic | $4 | 1,461 |
| GPT-6 Sol | OpenAI | $4 | 1,457 |
| Grok 4.6 | xAI | $3 | 1,456 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | $0.85 | 1,455 | |
| GPT-5.6 Luna | OpenAI | $0.45 | 1,453 |
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Xiaomi MiMo | $0.18 | 1,448 |
| Step 5 Preview | StepFun | $1.43 | 1,448 |
| Grok 4.3 | xAI | $1.56 | 1,442 |
| Grok 4.7 | xAI | $3 | 1,442 |
| GPT-6 Luna | OpenAI | $0.20 | 1,441 |
| Mistral Large 4 | Mistral AI | $1.05 | 1,423 |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | Anthropic | $0.20 | 1,422 |
| GPT-4.1 | OpenAI | $3.50 | 1,415 |
| Inkling 2 Small | Thinking Machines Lab | $0.47 | 1,412 |
| Solar Pro 4 | Upstage | $0.52 | 1,387 |
| GPT-4.1 mini | OpenAI | $0.70 | 1,383 |
| GPT-4.1 nano | OpenAI | $0.18 | 1,322 |
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
For 10M input and 2M output tokens, Claude Fable 5.2 costs 1.6 times as much as Claude Opus 4.8, at each provider's listed rates.
10M input and 2M output tokens
Claude Fable 5.2 costs 1.6× as much
- Claude Fable 5.2
- $160
- Claude Opus 4.8
- $100
The same, with 9M of the input tokens cached
Claude Fable 5.2 costs 1.5× as much
- Claude Fable 5.2
- $89.80
- Claude Opus 4.8
- $59.50
| Workload or rate | Claude Fable 5.2 | Claude Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|
| Example workloads | ||
| 10M input and 2M output tokens | $160 | $100 (better) |
| The same, with 9M of the input tokens cached | $89.80 | $59.50 (better) |
| The same, through the batch API | $80 | Not listed |
| Other listed rates | ||
| 1M input tokens, cached | $0.20 (better) | $0.50 |
| 1M input tokens, 5-minute cache write | $10 | Not listed |
| 1M input tokens, 1-hour cache write | $16 | Not listed |
| 1M input tokens, batch | $4 | Not listed |
| 1M output tokens, batch | $20 | Not listed |
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
- Higher GPQA Diamond score, 93.9% vs 91%
- Higher FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2) score, 95.1% vs 80%
- Higher SimpleQA Verified score, 94% vs 53%
- Accepts image input
- Cheaper cached input, $0.20 vs $0.50 per 1M tokens
- Batch pricing, $4 input and $20 output per 1M tokens
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 Opus 4.8
Where it leads
- Lower input and output prices, $5 and $25 vs $8 and $40 per 1M tokens
Best for
- Long-running agentic and professional-work evaluations
Watch out for
- Maximum output length is not represented because the approved source set does not establish one unambiguously
From benchmark to production
Building on Claude Fable 5.2 or Claude Opus 4.8?
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 Opus 4.8 FAQ
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.2 or Claude Opus 4.8?
Claude Opus 4.8 is 38% cheaper per 1M input tokens than Claude Fable 5.2, $5 vs $8. For 10M input and 2M output tokens, Claude Fable 5.2 costs $160 and Claude Opus 4.8 $100 at standard rates.
Which is cheaper with prompt caching, Claude Fable 5.2 or Claude Opus 4.8?
Claude Fable 5.2 charges $0.20 per 1M cached input tokens, 98% below its standard input rate, and Claude Opus 4.8 $0.50, 90% below. With 9M of 10M input tokens cached and 2M output tokens, Claude Fable 5.2 costs $89.80 and Claude Opus 4.8 $59.50.
Which scores higher on independent benchmarks, Claude Fable 5.2 or Claude Opus 4.8?
Claude Fable 5.2 leads on GPQA Diamond, 93.9% to 91%; Claude Fable 5.2 leads on FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2), 95.1% to 80%; Claude Fable 5.2 leads on SimpleQA Verified, 94% to 53%. Scores are independent evaluations, not either vendor's launch figures.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5.2 or Claude Opus 4.8?
Both accept 1,000,000 tokens of context.
How do Claude Fable 5.2 and Claude Opus 4.8 differ in features?
Claude Fable 5.2 takes text and image input; Claude Opus 4.8 takes text.
Further reading
More on Claude Fable 5.2 and Claude Opus 4.8
Articles on Claude Fable 5.2 and Claude Opus 4.8
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Opus 5.5, GPT-6 Astra and Mythos 5.2November 10, 2026
Related comparisons
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.8
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 4.8 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5
- Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Fable 5.2
- Claude Opus 4.8 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Fable 5.2
- Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Mythos 5.2
- Claude Opus 4.8 vs Claude Opus 5
Production evaluation
Choosing between Claude Fable 5.2 and Claude Opus 4.8?
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