Claude Fable 5vsGPT-4 Turbo
Claude Fable 5 | GPT-4 Turbo | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | 1M | 128k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $10.00 | $10.00 |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $50.00 | $30.00 |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | $1.00 | — |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $10.00Amazon Bedrock | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $50.00Amazon Bedrock | — |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 54% | — |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 1Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. Gray Swan's indirect prompt injection benchmark measures how often such an attack succeeds when the attacker gets a single try. Lower is better. | 0.4% | — |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 10Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 10 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | 2.3% | — |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 15Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 15 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | 2.8% | — |
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | 80.3% | — |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 95.5% | — |
CursorBench v3.2Agentic coding — Cursor's own test of harder, real-world coding tasks inside a code editor, on the refreshed v3.2 task set. Scores aren't comparable with v3.1. Higher is better. | 70.5% | — |
CursorBench v3.1Agentic coding — Cursor's own test of harder, real-world coding tasks inside a code editor. Higher is better. | 72.9% | — |
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | 70% | — |
DeepSWE 1.0Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. Higher is better. | 66.1% | — |
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | 92% | — |
Frontier-Bench v0.1Agentic computer work — A hard, ever-evolving set of real computer tasks — coding, system administration, data work, and more — that an AI agent has to complete on its own. Run by the Harbor / Laude Institute team as the successor to Terminal-Bench (v0.1 is the first release of the task set). The score is the share of tasks solved. Higher is better. | 33.8% | — |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 88% | — |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 86.9% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 64.5% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 42.5% |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 85% | — |
Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkAgentic legal work — Harvey's test of whether an AI agent can complete real legal work — drafting and reviewing documents, working with spreadsheets and presentations, and navigating files the way a lawyer's assistant would. Higher is better. | 11.25% | — |
TaxEval v2Tax questions — A set of real tax questions created by Vals AI — can the AI give accurate answers about tax rules and filings? Higher is better. | 76.94% | — |
MedScribeMedical admin work — Can the AI support doctors with their administrative work, like notes and paperwork? Created by Vals AI. Higher is better. | 88.52% | — |
GDPval-AAKnowledge work — Measures how well the AI does economically valuable knowledge work, judged against human experts. Shown as a rating (like a chess Elo) — higher is better. | 1932 | — |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 1760 | — |
Arena Elo (Text)Community preference — Real people chat with two anonymous AIs side by side and vote for the answer they prefer. Votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai — it measures which AI people actually like, not test scores. Higher is better. | 1509 | — |
Arena Elo (Code)Community preference (code) — Like the text arena, but people vote on which AI writes better code. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai. Higher is better. | 1626 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Release date | Jun 9 2026 | Nov 6 2023 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Other comparisons
Claude Fable 5vsGemini 3.7 FlashGPT-4 TurbovsGemini 3.7 FlashClaude Fable 5vsMuse GlimmerGPT-4 TurbovsMuse GlimmerClaude Fable 5vsGrok 4.6GPT-4 TurbovsGrok 4.6Claude Fable 5vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813GPT-4 TurbovsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Claude Fable 5vsMistral Medium 3.5GPT-4 TurbovsMistral Medium 3.5Claude Fable 5vsKimi K3GPT-4 TurbovsKimi K3
Frequently asked questions
Claude Fable 5 and GPT-4 Turbo don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Both charge $10.00 per million input tokens. GPT-4 Turbo is cheaper on output: $30.00 vs $50.00 per million tokens. GPT-4 Turbo shipped 946 days before Claude Fable 5, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Claude Fable 5) vs 128k (GPT-4 Turbo).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Claude Fable 5 and GPT-4 Turbo don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.
Claude Fable 5 was released by Anthropic on Jun 9 2026.
GPT-4 Turbo was released by OpenAI on Nov 6 2023.
Both charge $10.00 per million input tokens. GPT-4 Turbo is cheaper on output: $30.00 vs $50.00 per million tokens. Rates are pay-as-you-go API prices verified on August 18, 2026.
Claude Fable 5 has a 1M context window; GPT-4 Turbo has 128k.