Claude Fable 5vsGLM-5.3
Claude Fable 5 | GLM-5.3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | — | 743B |
Context window | 1M | — |
| Benchmarks | ||
Nonsense detection BullshitBench v2Given 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% | — |
Prompt injection robustness Gray Swan IPI · k = 1Attackers 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% | — |
Prompt injection robustness Gray Swan IPI · k = 10Attackers 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% | — |
Prompt injection robustness Gray Swan IPI · k = 15Attackers 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% | — |
Agentic coding SWE-Bench ProCan 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% | — |
Coding SWE-Bench VerifiedReal 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% | — |
Agentic coding CursorBench v3.2Cursor'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% | — |
Agentic coding CursorBench v3.1Cursor's own test of harder, real-world coding tasks inside a code editor. Higher is better. | 72.9% | — |
Agentic coding DeepSWE 1.1Artificial 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%Best | 66.9% |
Agentic coding DeepSWE 1.0Artificial 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 coding Next.js EvalsVercel'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% | — |
Agentic computer work Frontier-Bench v0.1A 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% | — |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 3.0command-line task completion (v3.0, much harder task set) | — | 28.3% |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.1Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 88% | — |
Web browsing BrowseCompCan the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 86.9% | — |
Cybersecurity CyberGymTests the AI on cybersecurity challenges — finding and exploiting software weaknesses inside a safe sandbox. Higher is better. | — | 84.5% |
Cybersecurity ExploitBenchA 'capability ladder' for security research, built by CMU researchers: the AI is given known bugs in Chrome's V8 engine and scored on how far it gets toward a working exploit inside a research sandbox — from understanding the patch to triggering a crash. Higher is better. | — | 54.4% |
Cybersecurity ExploitGym · 6-hour budgetCan an AI agent turn a known software vulnerability into a working attack in a controlled lab? Built by MPI-SP researchers, the score is how many of 898 real cases (userspace programs, the V8 engine, the Linux kernel) it cracks — here with a 6-hour compute budget per case. Higher is better. | — | 130 |
Cybersecurity ExploitGym · 2-hour budgetCan an AI agent turn a known software vulnerability into a working attack in a controlled lab? Built by MPI-SP researchers, the score is how many of 898 real cases (userspace programs, the V8 engine, the Linux kernel) it cracks — here with a 2-hour compute budget per case. Higher is better. | — | 105 |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsHumanity'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%Best | 62.5% |
Agentic computer use OSWorld-VerifiedCan the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 85% | — |
Agentic computer use Agent's Last ExamA hard set of desktop and operating-system tasks an AI agent has to finish by looking at the screen and working the machine itself. The score is the share it passes outright — partial credit does not count. Higher is better. | — | 28.5% |
Business workflows AutomationBenchTests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | — | 48.2% |
Agentic legal work Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkHarvey'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% | — |
Tax questions TaxEval v2A 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% | — |
Medical admin work MedScribeCan the AI support doctors with their administrative work, like notes and paperwork? Created by Vals AI. Higher is better. | 88.52% | — |
Knowledge work GDPval-AAMeasures 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 | — |
Knowledge work GDPval-AA v2economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 1760 | 1769Best |
Community preference Arena Elo (Text)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 | — |
Community preference (code) Arena Elo (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. | 1631 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | Z.ai |
| Release date | Jun 9 2026 | Aug 14 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Which is better: Claude Fable 5 or GLM-5.3?
Claude Fable 5 leads GLM-5.3 on 2 of the 3 benchmarks they both report (DeepSWE 1.1, Humanity's Last Exam, GDPval-AA v2). Claude Fable 5 shipped 66 days before GLM-5.3, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
On DeepSWE 1.1, Claude Fable 5 leads at 70% vs GLM-5.3 at 66.9%. On Humanity's Last Exam · with tools, Claude Fable 5 leads at 64.5% vs GLM-5.3 at 62.5%. On GDPval-AA v2, GLM-5.3 leads at 1769 vs Claude Fable 5 at 1760.
Frequently asked questions
Claude Fable 5 was released by Anthropic on Jun 9 2026.
GLM-5.3 was released by Z.ai on Aug 14 2026.
Claude Fable 5 leads on DeepSWE 1.1 — Claude Fable 5 70% vs GLM-5.3 66.9%.
Claude Fable 5 leads on Humanity's Last Exam · with tools — Claude Fable 5 64.5% vs GLM-5.3 62.5%.
Other comparisons
Claude Fable 5vsGPT-5.6-CyberGLM-5.3vsGPT-5.6-CyberClaude Fable 5vsGemini 3.7 FlashGLM-5.3vsGemini 3.7 FlashClaude Fable 5vsMuse GlimmerGLM-5.3vsMuse GlimmerClaude Fable 5vsGrok 4.6GLM-5.3vsGrok 4.6Claude Fable 5vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813GLM-5.3vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Claude Fable 5vsMistral Medium 3.5GLM-5.3vsMistral Medium 3.5