Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen3 32B

Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.3 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 32B costs 16× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5 Anthropic

66.3

Rank #5 Confirmed

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

38.8

Rank #166 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5 scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen3 32B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Fable 5 leads 76.8 to 19.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 61.1% for Claude Fable 5 and 17.3% for Qwen3 32B.
  • Qwen3 32B is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.
  • Claude Fable 5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
  • Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Fable 5Qwen3 32B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index66.338.8
Released2026-06-072025-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M131K
Max output128K16K
Input $ / M tokens$10$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$50$2.80
Results tracked6126

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), Qwen3 32B: 37.3 (#184)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3 32B
SciCode61%35.4%
LMArena Coding15191358
DeepSWE69.9%—
FrontierCode53.5%—
Aider Polyglot—40%
LMArena WebDev1626—
FrontierSWE47%—
WeirdML91.9%—
MirrorCode63.9%—
ALE-Bench2,041—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 54.1 (#2), Qwen3 32B: 32.3 (#58)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3 32B
APEX-Agents63.6%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—48.7%
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), Qwen3 32B: 19.6 (#233)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3 32B
Kagi LLM Benchmark91.4%54.9%
CritPt28.6%0.3%
Chess Puzzles41%5%
LMArena Hard Prompts15081335
DTBench98.4%67.5%
LMCA61.1%17.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index163.6138.51
ARC-AGI-289.2%—
SimpleBench81.9%—
NYT Connections (extended)92.7%—
ARC-AGI-198.5%—
EnigmaEval39.3%—
EBR-Bench39.5%—
Mystery Game Puzzles52%—
Surface Evolver Bench95%—
Bench to the Future 30.13—

Math Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 88.4 (#5), Qwen3 32B: 37.9 (#89)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3 32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%66.9%
LMArena Math15191399
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)87%—
FrontierMath Tier 490.2%—
ProofBench95%—
FrontierMath Erdős0%—

Knowledge Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 62.3 (#22), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#112)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3 32B
GPQA Diamond85.9%65.7%
LMArena Expert15341362
SimpleQA Verified70.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—5.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Fable 5: 45.6 (#14), Qwen3 32B: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3 32B
LMArena Vision1326—
Blueprint-Bench 238.6%—
Furniture Assembly35.8%—
LMArena Document1496—

Multilingual Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 57.6 (#8), Qwen3 32B: 45.8 (#162)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English14831317
LMArena Chinese15461357
LMArena German14861341
LMArena Russian15071311
LMArena French1509—
LMArena Japanese1507—
LMArena Korean1493—
LMArena Spanish1503—

Instruction Following Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 78.8 (#7), Qwen3 32B: 69.1 (#174)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following15031305

Long Context Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 46.3 (#22), Qwen3 32B: 43.7 (#83)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3 32B
LMArena Longer Query15101327
Fiction.LiveBench—74.2%

Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 76.1 (#5), Qwen3 32B: 53.1 (#158)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Qwen3 32B
LMArena Text14911340
LMArena Creative Writing14941297
LMArena Multi-Turn15051331
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1943—
EQ-Bench 41340—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Fable 5 better than Qwen3 32B?

Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.3 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 32B costs 16× 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 Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5 lists at $10 and $50.

Is Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

Claude Fable 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.0 versus 37.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Fable 5 does, with 1M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5 and Qwen3 32B share?

22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5 has 61 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper