Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Opus 4.7
Pricing, benchmarks, and use case comparison
Quick take
- •Claude Fable 5 leads on 2 of 2 shared benchmarks, including SWE-bench Verified (95.0% vs 87.6%), SWE-bench Pro (80.3% vs 64.3%).
- •Claude Opus 4.7 is meaningfully stronger at cost efficiency (70 vs 55).
- •Claude Opus 4.7 is 50% cheaper on input tokens, which compounds fast on high-volume or agentic workloads.
Specs comparison
| Claude Fable 5 | Claude Opus 4.7 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Anthropic |
| Type | Closed source | Closed source |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Input / 1M tokens | $10.00 | ✓$5.00 |
| Output / 1M tokens | $50.00 | $25.00 |
| Release date | 2026-06 | 2026-04 |
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | ✓95.0% | 87.6% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 | 88.0% | - |
| GPQA Diamond | 92.6% | - |
| SWE-bench Pro | ✓80.3% | 64.3% |
Scores sourced from official provider release posts and independent benchmark aggregators.
Which should you choose?
Choose Claude Fable 5 if...
- →You need the absolute highest capability Anthropic offers for hard tasks
- →You run long, complex autonomous agents where quality compounds over many steps
- →You do frontier-level engineering, research, or analytics and cost is secondary
- →You want maximum accuracy on the toughest coding and reasoning benchmarks
Choose Claude Opus 4.7 if...
- →You have a pipeline pinned to Opus 4.7 and need stability
- →Your workload is vision-heavy and benefits from higher-resolution image input
- →You need top-tier coding with 1M context but haven't migrated to 4.8 yet
- →You want documented, broadly available Opus-class behavior