Claude Fable 5 wins on coding (100 vs 85) and writing quality and price ($10 vs $12/1M input) and context window (1M vs 200K). For most workflows, Claude Fable 5 is the stronger default — new global #1 — 80.3% swe-bench pro, the most capable model generally available.
The shortest way to see the safest default, the lower-cost option, and the specialist pick before you read deeper.
Claude Fable 5 is the safest overall answer here when you want the strongest default instead of the lowest list price.
Meta: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is the lower-cost option to start with when you still need useful output at scale.
GPT-5.2 is the better pick when response speed matters more than maximum reasoning depth.
Claude Fable 5 leads on coding with a score of 100 vs 85 for GPT-5.2.
Claude Fable 5 has the larger context window: 1M vs 200K for GPT-5.2.
Claude Fable 5 is cheaper at $10/1M input tokens vs $12/1M for GPT-5.2.
Choose Claude Fable 5 for coding and research — the hardest coding tasks.
Choose GPT-5.2 when serious coding and complex product work.
Both models serve different primary workflows — consider using each where it has a clear edge.
Switch the scoring lens to see whether the top answer changes when you care more about cost, speed, or long-document work.
Anthropic / Premium / Jun 9, 2026
New global #1 — 80.3% SWE-Bench Pro, the most capable model generally available.
Ranks models by the broadest mix of coding, writing, research, and long-context usefulness.
You are latency- or cost-sensitive, or your tasks don't need frontier-level reasoning — Opus 4.8 at half the price is plenty.
The fastest way to see where the recommendation shifts when your priority changes.
New global #1 — 80.3% SWE-Bench Pro, the most capable model generally available.
Capable but outclassed — GPT-5.4 is now cheaper and better.
80.3% SWE-Bench Pro — the new #1, up from Opus 4.8's 69.2% and GPT-5.5's 58.6%
1932 on GDPval-AA, ahead of Opus 4.8 (1890) and GPT-5.5 (1769)
1M-token context at standard pricing, 128K max output per request
Mythos-class capability released for general use with new cyber-risk safeguards
Priced at $10/$50 per 1M tokens — double Opus 4.8 ($5/$25)
Deliberate pace; not for latency-sensitive interactive apps
Standard-use safeguards block some high-risk security workloads (use Mythos 5 with partner access)
UseRightAI recommendations are based on practical decision factors people actually feel in day-to-day use.
Newsletter
Useful if you care about ranking shifts, pricing changes, or a better recommendation appearing in this decision path.
No spam. Useful updates only. Affiliate disclosures always clearly labeled.
Claude Fable 5 wins on more categories — coding, research, long context. GPT-5.2 is the better pick when serious coding and complex product work. The right choice depends on your specific use case.
Claude Fable 5 is cheaper at $10/1M input and $50/1M output. GPT-5.2 costs $12/1M input and $38/1M output.
Claude Fable 5 has the larger context window at 1M tokens vs GPT-5.2's 200K. For large document analysis, Claude Fable 5 is the stronger pick.
Claude Fable 5 is better for coding with a score of 100 vs GPT-5.2's 85 (out of 100). Claude Fable 5 is the overall coding leader in this directory at 100/100.
GPT-5.2 is faster with a balanced speed rating (score: 3) vs Claude Fable 5's deliberate rating (score: 2).