Model comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs QwQ-32B
Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.8 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5 scores higher in 7 categories and QwQ-32B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Fable 5 leads 76.8 to 23.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 100% for Claude Fable 5 and 59.2% for QwQ-32B.
- QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5 | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 66.8 | 39.8 |
| Released | 2026-06-07 | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | — |
| Results tracked | 62 | 36 |
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), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1519 | 1333 |
| DeepSWE | 69.9% | — |
| FrontierCode | 53.5% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 20.9% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1625 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 47% | — |
| SciCode | 61% | — |
| GSO | 78.4% | — |
| WeirdML | 91.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.2% |
| MirrorCode | 63.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 2,041 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Fable 5: 54.0 (#2), QwQ-32B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| 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 (#6), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 41% | 5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1508 | 1325 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.06 | 137.6 |
| 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% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 83.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 52% | — |
| DTBench | 98.4% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65% |
| LMCA | 61.1% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 95% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.13 | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.3 |
| LiveBench | — | 72% |
Math Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 88.5 (#5), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 59.2% |
| LMArena Math | 1519 | 1359 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 87% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 90.2% | — |
| ProofBench | 95% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.8% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 62.2 (#25), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 85.9% | 65.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1534 | 1324 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.7% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Fable 5: 45.3 (#17), QwQ-32B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1324 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 38.6% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 35.8% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1496 | — |
Multilingual Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 57.3 (#9), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1481 | 1305 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1543 | 1378 |
| LMArena French | 1505 | 1336 |
| LMArena German | 1486 | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1506 | 1262 |
| LMArena Korean | 1488 | 1279 |
| LMArena Russian | 1504 | 1297 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1498 | 1354 |
Instruction Following Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 78.6 (#8), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1502 | 1297 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.8% |
Long Context QwQ-32B leads
Claude Fable 5: 46.3 (#23), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1509 | 1308 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 75.9 (#5), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1491 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1494 | 1288 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1943 | 1257 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1504 | 1314 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1340 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5 better than QwQ-32B?
Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.8 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Fable 5 or QwQ-32B better for coding?
Claude Fable 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 70.6 versus 35.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5 and QwQ-32B share?
22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5 has 62 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.