Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Opus 4.7

Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.8 to 58.3 on the Noometry Index. Claude Opus 4.7 costs 2.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 55 shared benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5 Anthropic

66.8

Rank #5 Confirmed

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #19 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 55 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5 scores higher in 9 categories and Claude Opus 4.7 in 1 category; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Fable 5 leads 76.8 to 53.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath Tier 4: 90.2% for Claude Fable 5 and 31.7% for Claude Opus 4.7.
  • Claude Opus 4.7 is cheaper at $5 / $25 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.

Side by side

Claude Fable 5Claude Opus 4.7
ProviderAnthropicAnthropic
Noometry Index66.858.3
Released2026-06-072026-04-14
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1M1M
Max output128K128K
Input $ / M tokens$10$5
Output $ / M tokens$50$25
Results tracked6266

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 70.6 (#4), Claude Opus 4.7: 59.6 (#13)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Claude Opus 4.7
FrontierCode53.5%38.5%
LMArena WebDev16251558
SciCode61%54.5%
GSO78.4%44.1%
WeirdML91.9%76.4%
LMArena Coding15191518
MirrorCode63.9%31.1%
ALE-Bench2,0411,323
SWE-bench Verified—83.5%
DeepSWE69.9%—
FrontierSWE47%—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 54.0 (#2), Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Claude Opus 4.7
APEX-Agents63.6%49.2%
τ²-bench Banking39.7%40.2%
PostTrainBench41.8%28.6%
GBAEval74.5%43.8%
GDP.pdf30%21%
LMArena Search12301233
Vending-Bench 25,68010,937
Terminal-Bench—80.2%
OSWorld 2.0—18.2%
Remote Labor Index16.1%—
ExploitBench—26.5%

Reasoning Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 76.8 (#6), Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Claude Opus 4.7
ARC-AGI-289.2%75.8%
SimpleBench81.9%61.7%
Kagi LLM Benchmark91.4%80.7%
NYT Connections (extended)92.7%39%
ARC-AGI-198.5%93.5%
CritPt28.6%12%
Chess Puzzles41%30%
EBR-Bench39.5%19%
LMArena Hard Prompts15081506
Mystery Game Puzzles52%28%
DTBench98.4%94.7%
LMCA61.1%52.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index162.06156.25
EnigmaEval39.3%—
Thematic Generalization—72.8%
Surface Evolver Bench95%—
Bench to the Future 30.13—
ForecastBench—60.3

Math Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 88.5 (#5), Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Claude Opus 4.7
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)87%70.2%
FrontierMath Tier 490.2%31.7%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%97.8%
ProofBench95%54%
LMArena Math15191499
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—73.6%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—43.8%
FrontierMath Erdős0%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—22.9%

Knowledge Too close to call

Claude Fable 5: 62.2 (#25), Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Claude Opus 4.7
GPQA Diamond85.9%90.2%
SimpleQA Verified70.7%51.7%
LMArena Expert15341521
Humanity's Last Exam—36.2%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—12%

Multimodal Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 45.3 (#17), Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Claude Opus 4.7
LMArena Vision13241316
Blueprint-Bench 238.6%24.5%
Furniture Assembly35.8%33.3%
LMArena Document14961495

Multilingual Too close to call

Claude Fable 5: 57.3 (#9), Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Claude Opus 4.7
LMArena Non-English14811480
LMArena Chinese15431531
LMArena French15051503
LMArena German14861495
LMArena Japanese15061472
LMArena Korean14881464
LMArena Russian15041494
LMArena Spanish14981495

Instruction Following Too close to call

Claude Fable 5: 78.6 (#8), Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Claude Opus 4.7
LMArena Instruction Following15021498

Long Context Too close to call

Claude Fable 5: 46.3 (#23), Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Claude Opus 4.7
LMArena Longer Query15091505

Writing & Preference Too close to call

Claude Fable 5: 75.9 (#5), Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Claude Opus 4.7
LMArena Text14911490
LMArena Creative Writing14941486
EQ-Bench Creative Writing19431914
EQ-Bench 413401311
LMArena Multi-Turn15041505

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Fable 5 better than Claude Opus 4.7?

Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.8 to 58.3 on the Noometry Index. Claude Opus 4.7 costs 2.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5 or Claude Opus 4.7?

Claude Opus 4.7 is cheaper. It lists at $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5 lists at $10 and $50.

Is Claude Fable 5 or Claude Opus 4.7 better for coding?

Claude Fable 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 70.6 versus 59.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 1M tokens.

How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5 and Claude Opus 4.7 share?

55 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5 has 62 scored results on Noometry and Claude Opus 4.7 has 66.

Related comparisons

Go deeper