Claude Fable 5 vs Llama 4
Pricing, benchmarks, and use case comparison
Quick take
- •Claude Fable 5 is meaningfully stronger at coding (99 vs 72 on our capability index).
- •Llama 4 is meaningfully stronger at cost efficiency (82 vs 55).
- •Llama 4 is open-weights (free to self-host); Claude Fable 5 is paid API only.
- •Llama 4 has a Up to 10M tokens (Scout); ~1M tokens (Maverick) context window vs 1M - better for whole-repo or long-document work.
Specs comparison
| Claude Fable 5 | Llama 4 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Meta |
| Type | Closed source | Open source |
| Context window | 1M | ✓Up to 10M tokens (Scout); ~1M tokens (Maverick) |
| Input / 1M tokens | $10.00 | ✓Free (self-host) |
| Output / 1M tokens | $50.00 | Free (self-host) |
| Release date | 2026-06 | 2025-04 |
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Llama 4 |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 95.0% | - |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 | 88.0% | - |
| GPQA Diamond | 92.6% | - |
| SWE-bench Pro | 80.3% | - |
| Scout context window | - | 10M tokens |
| Scout size | - | 17B active / 109B total (16 experts) |
| Maverick size | - | 17B active / 400B total (128 experts) |
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 Llama 4 if...
- →You need extremely long context in an open model (Scout's 10M window)
- →Self-hosted or on-prem multimodal deployment
- →You want an efficient MoE that activates few parameters per token
- →Fine-tuning or full control over the model