whichllmmodel
Back to Dashboard
Anthropic

Claude Fable 5

VS
Anthropic

Claude Sonnet 4.6

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

Decision Recommendation

⚖️ Editorial Verdict: In our analysis, Claude Fable 5 is the premium intelligence choice, scoring 80.3% higher on coding benchmarks. However, this accuracy premium comes with a cost overhead: Claude Sonnet 4.6 is 3.3x cheaper to run. If you are building high-volume, simple chatbots or processing massive amounts of text where budget is critical, Claude Sonnet 4.6 offers excellent cost savings. For agentic reasoning, code refactoring, or complex logical tasks, the accuracy premium of Claude Fable 5 fully justifies the cost.

Model Specs

Claude Fable 5

Benchmarks & Scores

Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+)
80.3%
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+14.2%)
94.1%

Cost & Performance

Cost (per 1M tokens)
$20.00Input: $10.00 | Output: $50.00
Speed1.1x faster
60.3 tps
Context Window
1M tokens
Model Specs

Claude Sonnet 4.6

Benchmarks & Scores

Coding (swe-bench-pro)
N/A
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
79.9%

Cost & Performance

Cost (per 1M tokens)3.3x cheaper
$6.00Input: $3.00 | Output: $15.00
Speed
54.3 tps
Context Window
1M tokens
Read our data collection methodology

Frequently Asked Questions

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is cheaper than Claude Fable 5. Claude Sonnet 4.6 has a blended cost of $6.00/1M tokens, which is about 3.3x cheaper than Claude Fable 5 at $20.00/1M tokens.

Claude Fable 5 is faster than Claude Sonnet 4.6. Claude Fable 5 generates 60.3 tokens per second (tps) compared to Claude Sonnet 4.6 which generates 54.3 tokens per second.

Claude Fable 5 is better for coding tasks. It scores 80.3% on coding evaluations (swe-bench-pro) compared to Claude Sonnet 4.6 which scores N/A.

Want to customize weights or add more models?

Open our interactive dashboard where you can adjust your priority levels for speed, budget, or accuracy slider-bars and watch model rankings calculate dynamically.

Customize in Interactive Dashboard