AnthropicClaude Fable 5VSOpenAIGPT-5.4
Our Take
We recommend Claude Fable 5 if your workflow requires peak coding capability, or the 3.6x cheaper GPT-5.4 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 GPT-5.4 for cost optimization.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Coding Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the SWE-bench Pro benchmark. Claude Fable 5 scored 80.3%, while GPT-5.4 scored 57.7%.
Reasoning Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. Claude Fable 5 scored 94.1%, while GPT-5.4 scored 92.8%.
Cost Efficiency: GPT-5.4 pricing ($2.5/M input, $15/M output) is 3.6x cheaper than Claude Fable 5 ($10/M input, $50/M output).
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+22.6%)
80.3%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+1.3%)
94.1%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$20.00Input: $10.00 | Output: $50.00Context Window
1.05M tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
57.7%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
92.8%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)3.6x cheaper
$5.63Input: $2.50 | Output: $15.00Context WindowLarger
1.05M tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Claude Fable 5 vs GPT-5.4
GPT-5.4 is cheaper than Claude Fable 5. GPT-5.4 has a blended cost of $5.63/1M tokens, which is about 3.6x 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 GPT-5.4 which scores 57.7%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Claude Fable 5 and GPT-5.4.
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.