Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen1.5-14B

Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.3 to 32.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5 Anthropic

66.3

Rank #5 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-14B Alibaba (Qwen)

32.1

Rank #250 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-14B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Fable 5 leads 88.4 to 29.9.
  • Qwen1.5-14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Fable 5Qwen1.5-14B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index66.332.1
Released2026-06-072024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$10—
Output $ / M tokens$50—
Results tracked6117

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 67.0 (#4), Qwen1.5-14B: 32.5 (#259)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Coding15191138
DeepSWE69.9%—
FrontierCode53.5%—
LMArena WebDev1626—
FrontierSWE47%—
SciCode61%—
WeirdML91.9%—
MirrorCode63.9%—
ALE-Bench2,041—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Fable 5: 54.1 (#2), Qwen1.5-14B: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen1.5-14B
APEX-Agents63.6%—
Remote Labor Index16.1%—
τ²-bench Banking39.7%—
PostTrainBench41.8%—
GBAEval74.5%—
GDP.pdf30%—
LMArena Search1230—
Vending-Bench 25,680—

Reasoning Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 76.8 (#4), Qwen1.5-14B: 20.5 (#217)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Hard Prompts15081113
ARC-AGI-289.2%—
SimpleBench81.9%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark91.4%—
NYT Connections (extended)92.7%—
ARC-AGI-198.5%—
CritPt28.6%—
Chess Puzzles41%—
EnigmaEval39.3%—
EBR-Bench39.5%—
Mystery Game Puzzles52%—
DTBench98.4%—
LMCA61.1%—
Surface Evolver Bench95%—
Bench to the Future 30.13—
Epoch Capabilities Index163.6—

Math Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 88.4 (#5), Qwen1.5-14B: 29.9 (#214)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Math15191125
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)87%—
FrontierMath Tier 490.2%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%—
ProofBench95%—
FrontierMath Erdős0%—

Knowledge Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 62.3 (#22), Qwen1.5-14B: 29.3 (#230)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Expert15341094
GPQA Diamond85.9%—
SimpleQA Verified70.7%—
MMLU—68.6%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Fable 5: 45.6 (#14), Qwen1.5-14B: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Vision1326—
Blueprint-Bench 238.6%—
Furniture Assembly35.8%—
LMArena Document1496—

Multilingual Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 57.6 (#8), Qwen1.5-14B: 30.8 (#257)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Non-English14831095
LMArena Chinese15461147
LMArena French15091115
LMArena German14861043
LMArena Japanese15071019
LMArena Russian15071046
LMArena Spanish15031085
LMArena Korean1493—

Instruction Following Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 78.8 (#7), Qwen1.5-14B: 57.1 (#266)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Instruction Following15031102

Long Context Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 46.3 (#22), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#252)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Longer Query15101113

Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 76.1 (#5), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#270)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Text14911128
LMArena Creative Writing14941091
LMArena Multi-Turn15051110
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1943—
EQ-Bench 41340—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Fable 5 better than Qwen1.5-14B?

Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.3 to 32.1 on the Noometry Index.

Is Claude Fable 5 or Qwen1.5-14B better for coding?

Claude Fable 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.0 versus 32.5 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5 and Qwen1.5-14B share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5 has 61 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-14B has 17.

Related comparisons

Go deeper