Model comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen3.5-Flash
Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.3 to 42.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 114× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 29 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 29 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Fable 5 leads 88.4 to 36.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 87% for Claude Fable 5 and 18.2% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5 | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 66.3 | 42.3 |
| Released | 2026-06-07 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 61 | 32 |
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), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.9 (#234)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1626 | 1243 |
| LMArena Coding | 1519 | 1412 |
| ALE-Bench | 2,041 | 221.8 |
| DeepSWE | 69.9% | — |
| FrontierCode | 53.5% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 47% | — |
| SciCode | 61% | — |
| WeirdML | 91.9% | — |
| MirrorCode | 63.9% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Fable 5: 54.1 (#2), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,680 | 462.69 |
| APEX-Agents | 63.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 16.1% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 39.7% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 41.8% | — |
| GBAEval | 74.5% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 30% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1230 | — |
Reasoning Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 76.8 (#4), Qwen3.5-Flash: 32.9 (#63)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 41% | 21% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1508 | 1404 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 52% | 20% |
| DTBench | 98.4% | 82.9% |
| LMCA | 61.1% | 29.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 163.6 | 143.98 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 89.2% | — |
| SimpleBench | 81.9% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 91.4% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.7% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98.5% | — |
| CritPt | 28.6% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 39.3% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 39.5% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 95% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.13 | — |
Math Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 88.4 (#5), Qwen3.5-Flash: 36.3 (#117)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 87% | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 84.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1519 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 90.2% | — |
| ProofBench | 95% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 62.3 (#22), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#84)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 85.9% | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.7% | 20.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1534 | 1408 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.5% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Fable 5: 45.6 (#14), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1326 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 38.6% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 35.8% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1496 | — |
Multilingual Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 57.6 (#8), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.7 (#116)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1483 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1546 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1509 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1486 | 1389 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1507 | 1369 |
| LMArena Korean | 1493 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1507 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1503 | 1399 |
Instruction Following Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 78.8 (#7), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.8 (#133)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1503 | 1374 |
Long Context Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 46.3 (#22), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#119)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1510 | 1392 |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 76.1 (#5), Qwen3.5-Flash: 58.2 (#117)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1491 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1494 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1505 | 1393 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1943 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1340 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5 better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.3 to 42.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 114× 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 Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5 lists at $10 and $50.
Is Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
Claude Fable 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.0 versus 33.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5 and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
29 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5 has 61 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.