text model comparison
Claude Fable 5.2 vs GPT-5.6 Cyber
Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-5.6 Cyber are both current text models, from Anthropic and OpenAI. Claude Fable 5.2 is 36% cheaper per 1M input tokens than GPT-5.6 Cyber, $8 vs $12.50. Claude Fable 5.2 has the larger context window, 1,000,000 vs 400,000 tokens.
- Lower price per 1M input tokens
- Claude Fable 5.2$8 against $12.50
- Longer context window
- Claude Fable 5.21M tokens against 400K tokens
- Newer release
- Claude Fable 5.2Nov 2026 against Aug 2026
Data verified November 11, 2026 · Dataset 2026-11-11
Side by side
Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-5.6 Cyber, 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 | GPT-5.6 Cyber |
|---|---|---|
| Price | ||
| Price per 1M input tokens | $8 (better) | $12.50 |
| Price per 1M output tokens | $40 (better) | $75 |
| Independent benchmarks | ||
| Arena WebDev | 1836 Elo (#1 of 44) | Not measured |
| GPQA Diamond | 93.9% (#13 of 40) | Not measured |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2) | 95.1% (#1 of 39) | Not measured |
| SimpleQA Verified | 94% (#1 of 36) | Not measured |
| Specs | ||
| Provider | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Release date | November 9, 2026 | August 10, 2026 |
| Access | API only | limited access |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 400,000 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.
Charts
Against every current text model
Where Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-5.6 Cyber 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 Arena WebDev score: #1 of 44. Each bar is the share of current models it beats.
Independent benchmarks
Arena WebDev
Claude Fable 5.2:#1of 44
1,836 Elo · ahead of 100%
GPT-5.6 Cyber: Not scored
GPQA Diamond
Claude Fable 5.2:#13of 40
93.9% · ahead of 69%
GPT-5.6 Cyber: Not scored
FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)
Claude Fable 5.2:#1of 39
95.1% · ahead of 100%
GPT-5.6 Cyber: Not scored
SimpleQA Verified
Claude Fable 5.2:#1of 36
94% · ahead of 100%
GPT-5.6 Cyber: Not scored
Price and context
Price per 1M input tokens
Claude Fable 5.2:#51of 57
$8 · cheaper than 9%
GPT-5.6 Cyber:#55of 57
$12.50 · cheaper than 4%
Price per 1M output tokens
Claude Fable 5.2:#51of 57
$40 · cheaper than 9%
GPT-5.6 Cyber:#55of 57
$75 · cheaper than 2%
Context window
Claude Fable 5.2:#29of 67
1M tokens · longer than 24%
GPT-5.6 Cyber:#56of 67
400K tokens · longer than 17%
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, GPT-5.6 Cyber costs 1.7 times as much as Claude Fable 5.2, at each provider's listed rates.
10M input and 2M output tokens
GPT-5.6 Cyber costs 1.7× as much
- Claude Fable 5.2
- $160
- GPT-5.6 Cyber
- $275
The same, with 9M of the input tokens cached
GPT-5.6 Cyber costs 1.9× as much
- Claude Fable 5.2
- $89.80
- GPT-5.6 Cyber
- $173.75
| Workload or rate | Claude Fable 5.2 | GPT-5.6 Cyber |
|---|---|---|
| Example workloads | ||
| 10M input and 2M output tokens | $160 (better) | $275 |
| The same, with 9M of the input tokens cached | $89.80 (better) | $173.75 |
| The same, through the batch API | $80 | Not listed |
| Other listed rates | ||
| 1M input tokens, cached | $0.20 (better) | $1.25 |
| 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
- Lower input and output prices, $8 and $40 vs $12.50 and $75 per 1M tokens
- Larger context window 1,000,000 vs 400,000 tokens
- Cheaper cached input, $0.20 vs $1.25 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
GPT-5.6 Cyber
Where it leads
No measured lead over Claude Fable 5.2 in this data.
Best for
- Daybreak Red teams that need exploit validation and security testing at a lower price than GPT-6 Cyber
Watch out for
- Limited access: available only to approved Daybreak Red customers
- OpenAI rates it High but not Critical in cybersecurity, and says it sometimes writes shorter, less detailed vulnerability reports than GPT-5.6 Sol
- OpenAI's newer GPT-6 Cyber (November 5, 2026) scores 48.5% on ExploitGym in OpenAI's chart, against 32.1% for this model; no independent benchmark score is recorded here
From benchmark to production
Building on Claude Fable 5.2 or GPT-5.6 Cyber?
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 GPT-5.6 Cyber FAQ
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.2 or GPT-5.6 Cyber?
Claude Fable 5.2 is 36% cheaper per 1M input tokens than GPT-5.6 Cyber, $8 vs $12.50. For 10M input and 2M output tokens, Claude Fable 5.2 costs $160 and GPT-5.6 Cyber $275 at standard rates.
Which is cheaper with prompt caching, Claude Fable 5.2 or GPT-5.6 Cyber?
Claude Fable 5.2 charges $0.20 per 1M cached input tokens, 98% below its standard input rate, and GPT-5.6 Cyber $1.25, 90% below. With 9M of 10M input tokens cached and 2M output tokens, Claude Fable 5.2 costs $89.80 and GPT-5.6 Cyber $173.75.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5.2 or GPT-5.6 Cyber?
Claude Fable 5.2 has the larger context window, 1,000,000 vs 400,000 tokens. Both return up to 128,000 tokens per response.
Further reading
More on Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-5.6 Cyber
Articles on Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-5.6 Cyber
- 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 4.8
- Claude Mythos 5.2 vs GPT-5.6 Cyber
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-5.6 Cyber vs GPT-6 Cyber
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
- GPT-5.6 Cyber vs GPT-Rosalind-6
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-5.6 Cyber vs GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-5.6 Cyber
- Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Fable 5.2
- Claude Mythos 5.1 vs GPT-5.6 Cyber
Production evaluation
Choosing between Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-5.6 Cyber?
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