Skip to main content
Van Data Team

text model comparison

Claude Fable 5.2 vs GPT-5.5

Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-5.5 are both current text models, from Anthropic and OpenAI. GPT-5.5 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 GPT-5.5 90.7% (Epoch AI, measured November 11, 2026). GPT-5.5 has the larger context window, 1,050,000 vs 1,000,000 tokens.

Higher GPQA Diamond
Claude Fable 5.293.9% against 90.7%
Lower price per 1M input tokens
GPT-5.5$5 against $8
Longer context window
GPT-5.51.05M tokens against 1M tokens
Newer release
Claude Fable 5.2Nov 2026 against Apr 2026

Data verified November 11, 2026 · Dataset 2026-11-11

Share this

Side by side

Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-5.5, line by line

Prices in effect today, compared at the same tier wherever both list one. The better value in each row is highlighted.

FactClaude Fable 5.2GPT-5.5
Price
Price per 1M input tokens$8$5 (better)
Price per 1M output tokens$40$30 (better)
Independent benchmarks
GPQA Diamond93.9% (#13 of 40) (better)90.7% (#25 of 40)
FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)95.1% (#1 of 39) (better)85.3% (#12 of 39)
SimpleQA Verified94% (#1 of 36) (better)63% (#12 of 36)
Arena WebDev1836 Elo (#1 of 44)Not measured
Arena TextNot measured1481 Elo (#14 of 48)
LiveBench OverallNot measured79.91 points (#1 of 2)
Specs
ProviderAnthropicOpenAI
Release dateNovember 9, 2026April 23, 2026
AccessAPI onlyAPI only
Context window1,000,000 tokens1,050,000 tokens
Max output128,000 tokens128,000 tokens
Inputtext, imagetext, image
Outputtexttext

Scores:Epoch AI · 2026-11-11Arena · 2026-11-11LiveBench · 2026-06-25

Open both in the interactive comparison

Charts

Against every current text model

Where Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-5.5 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 #13 and GPT-5.5 #25 of 40 current models. Each bar is the share of current models it beats: on score, price and context.

Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-5.5 among the current text models, one row per benchmark, price and context window.

Independent benchmarks

Arena Text

Claude Fable 5.2: Not scored

GPT-5.5:#14of 48

1,481 Elo · ahead of 72%

Arena WebDev

Claude Fable 5.2:#1of 44

1,836 Elo · ahead of 100%

GPT-5.5: Not scored

GPQA Diamond

Claude Fable 5.2:#13of 40

93.9% · ahead of 69%

GPT-5.5:#25of 40

90.7% · ahead of 38%

FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)

Claude Fable 5.2:#1of 39

95.1% · ahead of 100%

GPT-5.5:#12of 39

85.3% · ahead of 71%

SimpleQA Verified

Claude Fable 5.2:#1of 36

94% · ahead of 100%

GPT-5.5:#12of 36

63% · ahead of 69%

Price and context

Price per 1M input tokens

Claude Fable 5.2:#51of 57

$8 · cheaper than 9%

GPT-5.5:#50of 57

$5 · cheaper than 13%

Price per 1M output tokens

Claude Fable 5.2:#51of 57

$40 · cheaper than 9%

GPT-5.5:#50of 57

$30 · cheaper than 13%

Context window

Claude Fable 5.2:#29of 67

1M tokens · longer than 24%

GPT-5.5:#1of 67

1.05M tokens · longer than 85%

Scores fromArena · 2026-11-11Epoch AI · 2026-11-11

Quality against price

Arena Text · measured November 9, 2026

GPT-5.5 scores 1,481 at $11.25 (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 priceArena Text score against price for 40 text models, Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-5.5 marked.1,2501,3001,3501,4001,4501,5001,550$0.30$1$3$10MOST ATTRACTIVE QUADRANTMedian price $2.08Median 1,472Blended price per 1M tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scaleArena Text (Elo)GPT-5.5
Quality against price: the data
Arena Text score against price for 40 text models, Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-5.5 marked.
ModelProviderBlended price per 1M tokensArena Text (Elo)
Gemini 4 CarbonGoogle$41,526
Gemini 4 ArgonGoogle$41,522
Muse WonderMeta$81,511
Claude Opus 5.5Anthropic$81,506
Gemini 3.8 FlashGoogle$1.501,497
Muse Spark 1.3Meta$21,496
Kimi K3Moonshot Kimi$61,487
GPT-5.6 SolOpenAI$81,485
Qwen3.8-MaxAlibaba Qwen$31,484
Gemini 3.6 FlashGoogle$31,483
GLM-5.3Z.ai$2.151,483
GPT-6.1 SolOpenAI$41,482
GPT-5.5OpenAI$111,481
MiMo-V2.6-ProXiaomi MiMo$0.541,480
GPT-5.4OpenAI$5.631,475
DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek$0.521,475
GPT-6 AstraOpenAI$201,474
GLM-5.3-FlashZ.ai$0.241,474
Gemini 3 Flash PreviewGoogle$1.131,473
Grok 4.20xAI$1.561,472
Claude Sonnet 5.5Anthropic$41,472
GPT-5.6 TerraOpenAI$4.501,468
Grok 4.5xAI$31,466
DeepSeek-V4-ProDeepSeek$1.981,464
GPT-6 SolOpenAI$41,457
Grok 4.6xAI$31,456
Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteGoogle$0.851,455
GPT-5.6 LunaOpenAI$0.451,453
MiMo-V2.6-FlashXiaomi MiMo$0.181,448
Step 5 PreviewStepFun$1.431,448
Grok 4.3xAI$1.561,442
Grok 4.7xAI$31,442
GPT-6 LunaOpenAI$0.201,441
Mistral Large 4Mistral AI$1.051,423
Claude Haiku 5.5Anthropic$0.201,422
GPT-4.1OpenAI$3.501,415
Inkling 2 SmallThinking Machines Lab$0.471,412
Solar Pro 4Upstage$0.521,387
GPT-4.1 miniOpenAI$0.701,383
GPT-4.1 nanoOpenAI$0.181,322

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 1.5 times as much as GPT-5.5, at each provider's listed rates.

What Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-5.5 cost for the same work, at the rates each provider lists.

  • 10M input and 2M output tokens

    Claude Fable 5.2 costs 1.5× as much

    Claude Fable 5.2
    $160
    GPT-5.5
    $110

  • The same, with 9M of the input tokens cached

    Claude Fable 5.2 costs 1.3× as much

    Claude Fable 5.2
    $89.80
    GPT-5.5
    $69.50
Workload or rateClaude Fable 5.2GPT-5.5
Example workloads
10M input and 2M output tokens$160$110 (better)
The same, with 9M of the input tokens cached$89.80$69.50 (better)
The same, through the batch API$80Not listed
Other listed rates
1M input tokens, cached$0.20 (better)$0.50
1M input tokens, 5-minute cache write$10Not listed
1M input tokens, 1-hour cache write$16Not listed
1M input tokens, batch$4Not listed
1M output tokens, batch$20Not 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

Book the cost audit

Verdict

When to choose each

Claude Fable 5.2

Where it leads

  • Higher GPQA Diamond score, 93.9% vs 90.7%
  • Higher FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2) score, 95.1% vs 85.3%
  • Higher SimpleQA Verified score, 94% vs 63%
  • 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 Text has not rated Fable 5.2 yet, and its WebDev rating rests on 994 votes so far
Full Claude Fable 5.2 profile

GPT-5.5

Where it leads

  • Lower input and output prices, $5 and $30 vs $8 and $40 per 1M tokens
  • Larger context window 1,050,000 vs 1,000,000 tokens

Best for

  • High-capability API evaluations with long context

Watch out for

  • Prompts above the provider long-context threshold use higher token rates; validate the selected reasoning effort against production cost
Full GPT-5.5 profile

From benchmark to production

Building on Claude Fable 5.2 or GPT-5.5?

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

Book the cost auditAI agent development

FAQ

Claude Fable 5.2 vs GPT-5.5 FAQ

Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.2 or GPT-5.5?

GPT-5.5 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 GPT-5.5 $110 at standard rates.

Which is cheaper with prompt caching, Claude Fable 5.2 or GPT-5.5?

Claude Fable 5.2 charges $0.20 per 1M cached input tokens, 98% below its standard input rate, and GPT-5.5 $0.50, 90% below. With 9M of 10M input tokens cached and 2M output tokens, Claude Fable 5.2 costs $89.80 and GPT-5.5 $69.50.

Which scores higher on independent benchmarks, Claude Fable 5.2 or GPT-5.5?

Claude Fable 5.2 leads on GPQA Diamond, 93.9% to 90.7%; Claude Fable 5.2 leads on FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2), 95.1% to 85.3%; Claude Fable 5.2 leads on SimpleQA Verified, 94% to 63%. Scores are independent evaluations, not either vendor's launch figures.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5.2 or GPT-5.5?

GPT-5.5 has the larger context window, 1,050,000 vs 1,000,000 tokens. Both return up to 128,000 tokens per response.

Further reading

More on Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-5.5

Articles on Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-5.5

Related comparisons

Production evaluation

Choosing between Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-5.5?

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
Compare all modelsBook a consultation