Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.8 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 27× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5 Anthropic

66.8

Rank #5 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Fable 5 leads 76.8 to 21.2.
  • Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper at $0.66 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.
  • Claude Fable 5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 33K.
  • Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Fable 5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index66.833.4
Released2026-06-072024-09-18
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M33K
Max output128K29K
Input $ / M tokens$10$0.66
Output $ / M tokens$50$1
Results tracked6231

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), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Coding15191276
DeepSWE69.9%—
FrontierCode53.5%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—9%
Aider Polyglot—16.4%
LMArena WebDev1625—
FrontierSWE47%—
SciCode61%—
GSO78.4%—
WeirdML91.9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—49%
LiveBench Coding—56.9%
MirrorCode63.9%—
BigCodeBench Complete—58%
ALE-Bench2,041—
HumanEval+—87.2%
MBPP+—77%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Fable 5: 54.0 (#2), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
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 (#6), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts15081251
Epoch Capabilities Index162.06119.49
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%—
LiveBench Reasoning—42.1%
Mystery Game Puzzles52%—
DTBench98.4%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.9%
LMCA61.1%—
Surface Evolver Bench95%—
Bench to the Future 30.13—
HellaSwag—83%
LiveBench—46.2%
WinoGrande—80.8%

Math Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 88.5 (#5), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Math15191251
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)87%—
FrontierMath Tier 490.2%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%—
ProofBench95%—
LiveBench Math—46.6%
FrontierMath Erdős0%—
GSM8K—93%

Knowledge Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 62.2 (#25), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Expert15341221
GPQA Diamond85.9%—
SimpleQA Verified70.7%—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—70.5%
MMLU—79.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Fable 5: 45.3 (#17), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Vision1324—
Blueprint-Bench 238.6%—
Furniture Assembly35.8%—
LMArena Document1496—

Multilingual Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 57.3 (#9), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English14811205
LMArena Chinese15431222
LMArena Russian15041228
LMArena French1505—
LMArena German1486—
LMArena Japanese1506—
LMArena Korean1488—
LMArena Spanish1498—

Instruction Following Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 78.6 (#8), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Instruction Following15021223
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.7%

Long Context Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 46.3 (#23), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query15091251

Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 75.9 (#5), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text14911230
LMArena Creative Writing14941174
LMArena Multi-Turn15041222
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1943—
EQ-Bench 41340—
LiveBench Language—23.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Fable 5 better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.8 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 27× 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 Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.66 per million input tokens and $1 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5 lists at $10 and $50.

Is Claude Fable 5 or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

Claude Fable 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 70.6 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Fable 5 does, with 1M tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5 and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5 has 62 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper