text model comparison
Claude Fable 5.2 vs GPT-Rosalind-6
Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-Rosalind-6 are both current text models, from Anthropic and OpenAI. Claude Fable 5.2 is 47% cheaper per 1M input tokens than GPT-Rosalind-6, $8 vs $15.
- Lower price per 1M input tokens
- Claude Fable 5.2$8 against $15
- Newer release
- Claude Fable 5.2Nov 2026 against Oct 2026
Data verified November 11, 2026 · Dataset 2026-11-11
Side by side
Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-Rosalind-6, 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-Rosalind-6 |
|---|---|---|
| Price | ||
| Price per 1M input tokens | $8 (better) | $15 |
| 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 | October 30, 2026 |
| Access | API only | limited access |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | Not reported |
| Max output | 128,000 tokens | Not reported |
| Input | text, image | text |
| 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-Rosalind-6 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-Rosalind-6: Not scored
GPQA Diamond
Claude Fable 5.2:#13of 40
93.9% · ahead of 69%
GPT-Rosalind-6: Not scored
FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)
Claude Fable 5.2:#1of 39
95.1% · ahead of 100%
GPT-Rosalind-6: Not scored
SimpleQA Verified
Claude Fable 5.2:#1of 36
94% · ahead of 100%
GPT-Rosalind-6: Not scored
Price and context
Price per 1M input tokens
Claude Fable 5.2:#51of 57
$8 · cheaper than 9%
GPT-Rosalind-6:#56of 57
$15 · cheaper than 2%
Price per 1M output tokens
Claude Fable 5.2:#51of 57
$40 · cheaper than 9%
GPT-Rosalind-6:#55of 57
$75 · cheaper than 2%
Context window
Claude Fable 5.2:#29of 67
1M tokens · longer than 24%
GPT-Rosalind-6: Not listed
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-Rosalind-6 costs 1.9 times as much as Claude Fable 5.2, at each provider's listed rates.
10M input and 2M output tokens
GPT-Rosalind-6 costs 1.9× as much
- Claude Fable 5.2
- $160
- GPT-Rosalind-6
- $300
The same, with 9M of the input tokens cached
GPT-Rosalind-6 costs 2.0× as much
- Claude Fable 5.2
- $89.80
- GPT-Rosalind-6
- $178.50
| Workload or rate | Claude Fable 5.2 | GPT-Rosalind-6 |
|---|---|---|
| Example workloads | ||
| 10M input and 2M output tokens | $160 (better) | $300 |
| The same, with 9M of the input tokens cached | $89.80 (better) | $178.50 |
| The same, through the batch API | $80 | Not listed |
| Other listed rates | ||
| 1M input tokens, cached | $0.20 (better) | $1.50 |
| 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
- Lower input and output prices, $8 and $40 vs $15 and $75 per 1M tokens
- Accepts image input
- Cheaper cached input, $0.20 vs $1.50 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
GPT-Rosalind-6
Where it leads
No measured lead over Claude Fable 5.2 in this data.
Best for
- Drug discovery and life sciences research teams approved for OpenAI's trusted access
- Dual-use biology research that GPT-6 Astra is more likely to refuse
Watch out for
- Limited access: OpenAI offers it only through its trusted-access program, after reviewing each applicant's intended use, security controls and governance, for internal research
- OpenAI treats it as High capability in the biological and chemical domain, so access comes with security, monitoring and enforcement terms
- OpenAI publishes no context window for it and compares it only with GPT-Rosalind-5.5; no independent benchmark score is recorded here yet
From benchmark to production
Building on Claude Fable 5.2 or GPT-Rosalind-6?
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-Rosalind-6 FAQ
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.2 or GPT-Rosalind-6?
Claude Fable 5.2 is 47% cheaper per 1M input tokens than GPT-Rosalind-6, $8 vs $15. For 10M input and 2M output tokens, Claude Fable 5.2 costs $160 and GPT-Rosalind-6 $300 at standard rates.
Which is cheaper with prompt caching, Claude Fable 5.2 or GPT-Rosalind-6?
Claude Fable 5.2 charges $0.20 per 1M cached input tokens, 98% below its standard input rate, and GPT-Rosalind-6 $1.50, 90% below. With 9M of 10M input tokens cached and 2M output tokens, Claude Fable 5.2 costs $89.80 and GPT-Rosalind-6 $178.50.
How do Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-Rosalind-6 differ in features?
Claude Fable 5.2 takes text and image input; GPT-Rosalind-6 takes text.
Further reading
More on Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-Rosalind-6
Articles on Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-Rosalind-6
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Opus 5.5, GPT-6 Astra and Mythos 5.2November 10, 2026
- GPT-Rosalind-6: OpenAI's Biology Model and Trusted AccessNovember 1, 2026
Related comparisons
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Opus 4.8
- GPT-6 Cyber vs GPT-Rosalind-6
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-Rosalind-6
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
- Claude Fable 5 vs GPT-Rosalind-6
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Claude Mythos 5.1 vs GPT-Rosalind-6
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs GPT-6 Astra
- GPT-5.5 vs GPT-Rosalind-6
- Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Fable 5.2
- GPT-5.6 Cyber vs GPT-Rosalind-6
Production evaluation
Choosing between Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-Rosalind-6?
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