Claude Fable 5 vs GPT-5.6
Pricing, benchmarks, and use case comparison
Quick take
- •GPT-5.6 leads on 1 of 1 shared benchmarks, including Terminal-Bench 2.1 (88.8 vs 88.0%).
- •Claude Fable 5 is meaningfully stronger at long context (95 vs 84 on our capability index).
- •GPT-5.6 is meaningfully stronger at speed (72 vs 55).
- •GPT-5.6 is 50% cheaper on input tokens, which compounds fast on high-volume or agentic workloads.
Specs comparison
| Claude Fable 5 | GPT-5.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Type | Closed source | Closed source |
| Context window | ✓1M | Not announced |
| Input / 1M tokens | $10.00 | ✓5 |
| Output / 1M tokens | $50.00 | 30 |
| Release date | 2026-06 | 2026-06 |
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | GPT-5.6 |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 95.0% | - |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 | 88.0% | ✓88.8 |
| GPQA Diamond | 92.6% | - |
| SWE-bench Pro | 80.3% | - |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Sol) | - | 88.8% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Terra) | - | 82.5% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Luna) | - | 84.3% |
| ExploitBench | - | Competitive with Anthropic Mythos Preview |
| ExploitGym | - | Significant improvements |
| GeneBench v1 | - | Not announced |
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 GPT-5.6 if...
- →You want to standardize on one model generation but route requests across cost/quality tiers
- →You are an approved preview partner exploring the newest OpenAI capabilities
- →Workloads spanning agentic coding, knowledge work, and research where tier flexibility helps