Claude Fable 5.2 vs Dola Seed 2.0 Pro
Full profiles: Claude Fable 5.2 (Anthropic) and Dola Seed 2.0 Pro (ByteDance): every benchmark, price and rank.
Updated · Data from 5 sources
As of 9 Nov 2026, Claude Fable 5.2 is ahead of Dola Seed 2.0 Pro on quality (69.4 vs 58.5 on the BenchLeader Index). Claude Fable 5.2 leads in every category we measure both in.
Key facts (as of 9 Nov 2026)
- Claude Fable 5.2 scores 69.4 on the BenchLeader Index and Dola Seed 2.0 Pro scores 58.5 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
- Claude Fable 5.2 costs $16.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 9 Nov 2026).
Claude Fable 5.2 benchmarks 
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro benchmarks Which to pick for…
The pick's numbers come first. Category scores on the BenchLeader scale (50 is the average model, 15 points one standard deviation). High confidence means a lead of half a standard deviation or more; under one point is called either.
| Use case | Pick | Why | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Fable 5.2 | 80 vs 65 category score | High |
| Reasoning | Claude Fable 5.2 | 78 vs 64 category score | High |
| Chat quality (human preference) | – | Only Dola Seed 2.0 Pro has an Arena rating (64 category score) | Not comparable |
| High volume on a budget | Neither flagship | A smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs | – |
Key differences
- Claude Fable 5.2 (max) leads on quality: 69.4 vs 58.5.
- Claude Fable 5.2 (max) is stronger in coding, knowledge, long context, reasoning.
- Dola Seed 2.0 Pro is stronger in human preference, maths, multimodal.
At a glance
| Spec | Claude Fable 5.2 | Dola Seed 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | ByteDance |
| Released | 9 Nov 2026 | 14 Feb 2026 |
| Context window (tokens) | 1,000,000 | – |
| Compared at | Claude Fable 5.2 (max) | Dola Seed 2.0 Pro |
| Open weights | No | No |
| Price in / out / cached input per 1M | $8.00 / $40.00 / $0.200 | – |
Category by category
Category scores on the BenchLeader scale: 50 is the average evaluated model, 15 points is one standard deviation. A gap under one point is called level.
| Category | Claude Fable 5.2 (max) | Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 78.4 | 64.4 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Coding | 80.2 | 65.0 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Maths | – | 62.8 | not comparable |
| Knowledge | 81.7 | – | not comparable |
| Human preference | – | 64.2 | not comparable |
| Multimodal | – | 61.3 | not comparable |
| Long context | 66.4 | – | not comparable |
On one chart
Each domain on the index's own scale, where 50 is an average model. Click a domain to see the benchmarks behind it. Pick up to 5 models from the list.
Dashed: that model has no result on the axis it crosses; the line only joins its neighbours.
Not drawn, no result for these models: Agents & tools, Instruction following.
Where sources disagree
Across the 0 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 0, Dola Seed 2.0 Pro leads 0. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5.2 ahead.
| Overall index | Claude Fable 5.2 (max) | Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 69.4 | 58.5 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
Each publisher runs its own tasks, harnesses and effort settings, so their overall verdicts can differ; BenchLeader reconciles them on one scale. † measured at another effort setting of the same model (the publisher did not test the one compared here).
Price, speed and latency
List prices blended at three input tokens per output token. Per-task prices use the token counts on the methodology page. Cost, tokens and time per benchmark task are measured: Artificial Analysis’ averages over its whole Intelligence Index run.
| Measure | Claude Fable 5.2 (max) | Dola Seed 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $16.00 | – |
| Input / output per 1M | $8.00 / $40.00 | – / – |
| Cached input per 1M | $0.200 | – |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.015 | – |
| Price per task: summarize a 30-page report | $0.120 | – |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.108 | – |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.640 | – |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.024 | – |
| Agentic coding session, input mostly cached | $0.289 | – |
| Cost per benchmark task (AA Index) | $26.54 | – |
| Output tokens per task (AA Index) | 274k | – |
| Of which reasoning | 193k | – |
| Output speed | 72 tok/s | – |
| Time to first answer | 3.0 s | – |
Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Claude Fable 5.2 (max) scores 69.4 and takes 3 s to its first answer token; Claude Fable 5.2 (high) scores 68.9 in 3 s, Claude Fable 5.2 (xhigh) scores 68.7 in 3 s. Dola Seed 2.0 Pro scores 58.5. Higher effort means more thinking before the answer: better scores, longer waits and more tokens billed. How reasoning effort changes scores and cost.
Every benchmark
57 benchmarks, grouped by category; each name links to the board and its leaders. † measured at another effort setting of the same model, shown for reference and not counted as a win.
| Metric | Publisher | Claude Fable 5.2 (max) | Dola Seed 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | BenchLeader | 69.4 | 58.5 |
| Coding score | BenchLeader | 80.2 | 65.0 |
| Knowledge score | BenchLeader | 81.7 | – |
| Long context score | BenchLeader | 66.4 | – |
| Reasoning score | BenchLeader | 78.4 | 64.4 |
| Human preference score | BenchLeader | – | 64.2 |
| Maths score | BenchLeader | – | 62.8 |
| Multimodal score | BenchLeader | – | 61.3 |
| Blended price $/M | BenchLeader | $16.00 | – |
| Output speed | BenchLeader | 72 tok/s | – |
| Time to first answer | BenchLeader | 3.0 s | – |
| Context window | BenchLeader | 1,000,000 tokens | – |
| Reasoning | |||
| Arena Hard Prompts | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1481 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 88.8%† | – |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 74.3% | – |
| HLE-Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 80.2% | – |
| ARC-AGI-1 | ARC Prize | 97.5% | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | ARC Prize | 92.5% | – |
| ARC-AGI-3 | ARC Prize | 94.9% | – |
| CritPt | Artificial Analysis | 35.4% | – |
| CritPt v2 hard subset (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 76.5% | – |
| MysteryMechanism | Vals AI | 51.8%† | – |
| Coding | |||
| Arena Coding | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1514 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Coding | LiveBench | 79.2%† | – |
| SciCode (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 67.7% | – |
| Code Migration v1.1 | Vals AI | 83.3%† | – |
| ProgramBench | Vals AI | 19.0%† | – |
| SWE-bench Multimodal | Vals AI | 62.3%† | – |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 93.8%† | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 59.6% | – |
| FrontierCode 1.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 56.2% | – |
| FrontierCode 2.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 48.8% | – |
| Agents & tools | |||
| LiveBench Long Agentic | LiveBench | 82.9%† | – |
| LiveBench Browser | LiveBench | 86.9%† | – |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1831 | – |
| Finance Agent v2.1 | Vals AI | 69.5%† | – |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | 5.0%† | – |
Show all 57 benchmarks
| Metric | Publisher | Claude Fable 5.2 (max) | Dola Seed 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agents & tools | |||
| Legal Research Bench | Vals AI | 46.1%† | – |
| Tax Agent Bench | Vals AI | 32.1%† | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | 65.2%† | – |
| Terminal-Bench Science | Vals AI | 55.7%† | – |
| AutomationBench | Artificial Analysis | 76.4% | – |
| GDP.pdf (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 24.2% | – |
| Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 | Harvey | 7.2% | – |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1785 | – |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 73.3% | – |
| Maths | |||
| Arena Maths | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1449 |
| Knowledge | |||
| LiveBench 2.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 81.5%† | – |
| LiveBench Research | LiveBench | 94.5%† | – |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 66.8 | – |
| BioMysteryBench | Vals AI | 83.7%† | – |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | 77.4%† | – |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1: accuracy | Artificial Analysis | 79.1% | – |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucination | Artificial Analysis | 40.7% | – |
| HealthBench Professional (AA) | OpenAI | 67.7% | – |
| Instruction following | |||
| Arena Instruction Following | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1435 |
| Human preference | |||
| Arena Text | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1457 |
| Arena Creative Writing | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1403 |
| Arena Multi-turn | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1449 |
| Arena Longer Queries | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1453 |
| Multimodal | |||
| Arena Vision | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1274 |
| LiveBench Design | LiveBench | 85.1%† | – |
| AA-3D | Artificial Analysis | 1271 | – |
| Long context | |||
| AA-LCR v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 83.3% | – |
| Composite | |||
| LiveBench 2.0 | LiveBench | 84.9%† | – |
| AA Intelligence Index v5.0 | Artificial Analysis | 64.6 | – |
| Vals Index | Vals AI | 71.3† | – |
| Vals Finance Index | Vals AI | 63.6%† | – |
| Vals Science Index | Vals AI | 63.7%† | – |
Data as of 2026-11-09. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
What changed
- Dola Seed 2.0 Pro: BenchLeader Index 59.1 → 58.6.
Related comparisons
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs GPT-6 Astra
- Dola Seed 2.0 Pro vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Dola Seed 2.0 Pro vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Dola Seed 2.0 Pro vs GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Fable 5.1
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Fable 5
Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Dola Seed 2.0 Pro: questions
- Is Claude Fable 5.2 better than Dola Seed 2.0 Pro?
- Claude Fable 5.2 (max) leads on quality: 69.4 vs 58.5. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Fable 5.2 (max) is ahead overall as of 9 Nov 2026, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is Claude Fable 5.2 or Dola Seed 2.0 Pro better for coding?
- Claude Fable 5.2 scores higher in coding (80 vs 65 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- When was Claude Fable 5.2 released?
- Claude Fable 5.2 was released on 9 Nov 2026.