text model comparison
Claude Fable 5.2 vs GPT-6 Cyber
Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-6 Cyber are both current text models, from Anthropic and OpenAI. Claude Fable 5.2 is 60% cheaper per 1M input tokens than GPT-6 Cyber, $8 vs $20. GPT-6 Cyber has the larger context window, 1,050,000 vs 1,000,000 tokens.
- Lower price per 1M input tokens
- Claude Fable 5.2$8 against $20
- Longer context window
- GPT-6 Cyber1.05M tokens against 1M tokens
- Newer release
- Claude Fable 5.2Nov 9, 2026 against Nov 5, 2026
Data verified November 10, 2026 · Dataset 2026-11-10
Side by side
Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-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-6 Cyber |
|---|---|---|
| Price | ||
| Price per 1M input tokens | $8 (better) | $20 |
| Price per 1M output tokens | $40 (better) | $100 |
| 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 | OpenAI |
| Release date | November 9, 2026 | November 5, 2026 |
| Access | API only | limited access |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,050,000 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
Charts
Against every current text model
Where Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-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 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%
GPT-6 Cyber: Not scored
FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)
Claude Fable 5.2:#1of 43
95.1% · ahead of 100%
GPT-6 Cyber: Not scored
SimpleQA Verified
Claude Fable 5.2:#1of 40
94% · ahead of 100%
GPT-6 Cyber: Not scored
Price and context
Price per 1M input tokens
Claude Fable 5.2:#53of 61
$8 · cheaper than 12%
GPT-6 Cyber:#61of 61
$20 · cheaper than 0%
Price per 1M output tokens
Claude Fable 5.2:#53of 61
$40 · cheaper than 12%
GPT-6 Cyber:#61of 61
$100 · cheaper than 0%
Context window
Claude Fable 5.2:#28of 70
1M tokens · longer than 23%
GPT-6 Cyber:#1of 70
1.05M tokens · longer than 86%
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-6 Cyber costs 2.5 times as much as Claude Fable 5.2, at each provider's listed rates.
10M input and 2M output tokens
GPT-6 Cyber costs 2.5× as much
- Claude Fable 5.2
- $160
- GPT-6 Cyber
- $400
The same, with 9M of the input tokens cached
GPT-6 Cyber costs 2.7× as much
- Claude Fable 5.2
- $89.80
- GPT-6 Cyber
- $238
| Workload or rate | Claude Fable 5.2 | GPT-6 Cyber |
|---|---|---|
| Example workloads | ||
| 10M input and 2M output tokens | $160 (better) | $400 |
| The same, with 9M of the input tokens cached | $89.80 (better) | $238 |
| The same, through the batch API | $80 | Not listed |
| Other listed rates | ||
| 1M input tokens, cached | $0.20 (better) | $2 |
| 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 $20 and $100 per 1M tokens
- Cheaper cached input, $0.20 vs $2 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
GPT-6 Cyber
Where it leads
- Larger context window 1,050,000 vs 1,000,000 tokens
Best for
- Security teams approved for Daybreak Red that develop and validate exploits in authorized tests
- Vulnerability research and patch validation across large codebases such as browsers and kernels
Watch out for
- Limited access: OpenAI is rolling it out through the API and Codex to select approved Daybreak Red customers first, with identity verification, single sign-on, multi-factor authentication and API IP allowlisting
- OpenAI rates it Critical in cybersecurity under its Preparedness Framework, like GPT-6 Astra and up from High for GPT-5.6 Cyber, and adds checks that block high-risk activity against critical systems
- It does not beat GPT-6 Astra at general coding (82.95% against 83.24% on OpenAI's internal ExpertSWE), and on Irregular's FrontierCyber it solved 90 of 288 challenges against 96 for Astra; no independent benchmark score is recorded here yet
From benchmark to production
Building on Claude Fable 5.2 or GPT-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-6 Cyber FAQ
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.2 or GPT-6 Cyber?
Claude Fable 5.2 is 60% cheaper per 1M input tokens than GPT-6 Cyber, $8 vs $20. For 10M input and 2M output tokens, Claude Fable 5.2 costs $160 and GPT-6 Cyber $400 at standard rates.
Which is cheaper with prompt caching, Claude Fable 5.2 or GPT-6 Cyber?
Claude Fable 5.2 charges $0.20 per 1M cached input tokens, 98% below its standard input rate, and GPT-6 Cyber $2, 90% below. With 9M of 10M input tokens cached and 2M output tokens, Claude Fable 5.2 costs $89.80 and GPT-6 Cyber $238.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5.2 or GPT-6 Cyber?
GPT-6 Cyber 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-6 Cyber
Articles on Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-6 Cyber
- 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 Mythos 5.2 vs GPT-6 Cyber
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Cyber
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
- Claude Fable 5 vs GPT-6 Cyber
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Mythos 5.1 vs GPT-6 Cyber
- Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Fable 5.2
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 Cyber
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Fable 5.2
- Gemini 4 Carbon vs GPT-6 Cyber
Production evaluation
Choosing between Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-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