Model comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen Max
Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.3 to 34.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Max costs 7.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen Max in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Fable 5 leads 88.4 to 21.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 100% for Claude Fable 5 and 16.1% for Qwen Max.
- Qwen Max is cheaper at $1.60 / $6.40 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.
- Claude Fable 5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 33K.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5 | Qwen Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 66.3 | 34.4 |
| Released | 2026-06-07 | 2024-04-03 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 33K |
| Max output | 128K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | $1.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | $6.40 |
| Results tracked | 61 | 23 |
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), Qwen Max: 30.3 (#288)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1519 | 1288 |
| DeepSWE | 69.9% | — |
| FrontierCode | 53.5% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 21.8% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1626 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 47% | — |
| SciCode | 61% | — |
| WeirdML | 91.9% | — |
| MirrorCode | 63.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,041 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Fable 5: 54.1 (#2), Qwen Max: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,680 | — |
Reasoning Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 76.8 (#4), Qwen Max: 24.1 (#154)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1508 | 1270 |
| 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% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 41% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 39.3% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 39.5% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 52% | — |
| DTBench | 98.4% | — |
| LMCA | 61.1% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 95% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.13 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 163.6 | — |
Math Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 88.4 (#5), Qwen Max: 21.0 (#272)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 16.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1519 | 1275 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 87% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 90.2% | — |
| ProofBench | 95% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 67.2% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 1% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 62.3 (#22), Qwen Max: 30.3 (#222)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 85.9% | 56.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1534 | 1248 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.7% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Fable 5: 45.6 (#14), Qwen Max: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Qwen Max: 42.0 (#197)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1483 | 1263 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1546 | 1254 |
| LMArena French | 1509 | 1329 |
| LMArena German | 1486 | 1254 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1507 | 1205 |
| LMArena Korean | 1493 | 1141 |
| LMArena Russian | 1507 | 1274 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1503 | 1290 |
Instruction Following Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 78.8 (#7), Qwen Max: 66.7 (#203)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1503 | 1262 |
Long Context Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 46.3 (#22), Qwen Max: 39.4 (#175)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1510 | 1289 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 66.7% |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 76.1 (#5), Qwen Max: 48.0 (#200)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1491 | 1282 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1494 | 1248 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1505 | 1277 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1943 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1340 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5 better than Qwen Max?
Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.3 to 34.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Max costs 7.1× 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 Qwen Max?
Qwen Max is cheaper. It lists at $1.60 per million input tokens and $6.40 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5 lists at $10 and $50.
Is Claude Fable 5 or Qwen Max better for coding?
Claude Fable 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.0 versus 30.3 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 Qwen Max share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5 has 61 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Max has 23.