whichLlmmodel
Back to Dashboard

Alibaba Cloud (Qwen)Qwen3.7-MaxVSAnthropicClaude Fable 5

Analysis by:the whichllmmodel Editorial Team|Updated: June 2026

Our Take

We recommend Claude Fable 5 if your workflow requires peak coding capability, or the 5.3x cheaper Qwen3.7-Max to optimize your API budget. While both models deliver similar reasoning performance, Claude Fable 5 holds a clear lead in coding. Choose Claude Fable 5 for complex development tasks, or Qwen3.7-Max for cost optimization.
WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
  • Coding Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the SWE-bench Pro benchmark. Qwen3.7-Max scored 60.6%, while Claude Fable 5 scored 80.3%.
  • Reasoning Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. Qwen3.7-Max scored 92.4%, while Claude Fable 5 scored 94.1%.
  • Cost Efficiency: Qwen3.7-Max pricing ($2.5/M input, $7.5/M output) is 5.3x cheaper than Claude Fable 5 ($10/M input, $50/M output).
  • Was this recommendation helpful?
    Model Specs

    Qwen3.7-Max

    Benchmarks & Scores

    Coding (swe-bench-pro)
    60.6%

    complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning

    Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
    92.4%

    graduate-level science QA

    Cost & Context

    Cost (per 1M tokens)5.3x cheaper
    $3.75Input: $2.50 | Output: $7.50
    Context Window
    1.05M tokens
    Model Specs

    Claude Fable 5

    Benchmarks & Scores

    Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+19.7%)
    80.3%

    complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning

    Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+1.7%)
    94.1%

    graduate-level science QA

    Cost & Context

    Cost (per 1M tokens)
    $20.00Input: $10.00 | Output: $50.00
    Context Window
    1.05M tokens

    Frequently Asked Questions about Qwen3.7-Max vs Claude Fable 5

    Qwen3.7-Max is cheaper than Claude Fable 5. Qwen3.7-Max has a blended cost of $3.75/1M tokens, which is about 5.3x cheaper than Claude Fable 5 at $20.00/1M tokens.

    Claude Fable 5 is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 80.3% on swe-bench-pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning) compared to Qwen3.7-Max which scores 60.6%.

    Do you want to find a model for your constraints?

    Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.

    Open Model Finder