BenchLeader
Menu
Best LLMsChoose a modelCoding plansLeaderboardsModelsBenchmarksProvidersReleases12

Claude Fable 5.2 vs GPT-5.2

Full profiles: Claude Fable 5.2 (Anthropic) and GPT-5.2 (OpenAI): every benchmark, price and rank.

Updated · Data from 8 sources

As of 9 Nov 2026, Claude Fable 5.2 is ahead of GPT-5.2 on quality (69.4 vs 60.0 on the BenchLeader Index), but GPT-5.2 is 3.3× cheaper at $4.81 vs $16.00 per 1M tokens blended. 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 GPT-5.2 scores 60.0 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
  • Claude Fable 5.2 costs $16.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 9 Nov 2026).
  • GPT-5.2 costs $4.81 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 9 Nov 2026).
  • Of the 5 benchmarks both models have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 5 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
Claude Fable 5.2 benchmarks max Anthropic GPT-5.2 benchmarks xhigh OpenAIAdd a third model

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 casePickWhyConfidence
CodingClaude Fable 5.280 vs 63 category scoreHigh
ReasoningClaude Fable 5.278 vs 61 category score; ARC-AGI-2 92.5% vs 52.9%High
KnowledgeClaude Fable 5.282 vs 56 category scoreHigh
Long documentsEither66 vs 66 category score; AA-LCR v1.1 83.3% vs 82.7%Either
Lowest costGPT-5.2$4.81 vs $16.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.161 vs $0.640–
Fastest first answerClaude Fable 5.23.0 s (Claude Fable 5.2 (max)) vs 95.6 s (GPT-5.2 (xhigh)) to the first answer token–
High volume on a budgetNeither flagshipA 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 60.0.
  • Claude Fable 5.2 (max) is stronger in coding, knowledge, long context, reasoning.
  • GPT-5.2 (xhigh) is stronger in agents & tools, instruction following, maths.
  • GPT-5.2 (xhigh) is 3.3× cheaper ($4.81 vs $16.00 per 1M blended).

At a glance

SpecClaude Fable 5.2GPT-5.2
DeveloperAnthropicOpenAI
Released9 Nov 202611 Dec 2025
Context window (tokens)1,000,000400,000
Compared atClaude Fable 5.2 (max)GPT-5.2 (xhigh)
Open weightsNoNo
Price in / out / cached input per 1M$8.00 / $40.00 / $0.200$1.75 / $14.00 / $0.175

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.

CategoryClaude Fable 5.2 (max)GPT-5.2 (xhigh)Leader
Reasoning78.460.5Claude Fable 5.2
Coding80.263.0Claude Fable 5.2
Agents & tools–53.8not comparable
Maths–56.7not comparable
Knowledge81.756.2Claude Fable 5.2
Instruction following–73.7not comparable
Long context66.466.1level

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.

2550 avg75ReasoningCodingKnowledgeLong contextClaude Fable 5.2, Reasoning: 78.4Claude Fable 5.2, Coding: 80.2Claude Fable 5.2, Knowledge: 81.7Claude Fable 5.2, Long context: 66.4GPT-5.2, Reasoning: 60.5GPT-5.2, Coding: 63.0GPT-5.2, Knowledge: 56.2GPT-5.2, Long context: 66.1

Not drawn, measured for fewer than two of these models: Agents & tools, Maths, Instruction following, Multimodal, Human preference.

ModelIndex

Where sources disagree

Across the 5 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 5, GPT-5.2 leads 0. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5.2 ahead.

Overall indexClaude Fable 5.2 (max)GPT-5.2 (xhigh)Leader
BenchLeader Index69.460.0Claude 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.

MeasureClaude Fable 5.2 (max)GPT-5.2 (xhigh)
Blended price per 1M tokens$16.00$4.81
Input / output per 1M$8.00 / $40.00$1.75 / $14.00
Cached input per 1M$0.200$0.175
Price per task: chat reply$0.015$0.0049
Price per task: summarize a 30-page report$0.120$0.029
Price per task: code edit$0.108$0.032
Price per task: agentic coding session$0.640$0.161
Price per task: structured extraction$0.024$0.0063
Agentic coding session, input mostly cached$0.289$0.090
Cost per benchmark task (AA Index)$26.54–
Output tokens per task (AA Index)274k–
Of which reasoning193k–
Output speed72 tok/s74 tok/s
Time to first answer3.0 s95.6 s
Time to a complete answer–178.2 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. GPT-5.2 (xhigh) scores 60.0 and takes 96 s to its first answer token; GPT-5.2 scores 58.0 in 3 s, GPT-5.2 (medium) scores 56.2 in 12 s. 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

146 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.

MetricPublisherClaude Fable 5.2 (max)GPT-5.2 (xhigh)
BenchLeader IndexBenchLeader69.460.0
Coding scoreBenchLeader80.263.0
Knowledge scoreBenchLeader81.756.2
Long context scoreBenchLeader66.466.1
Reasoning scoreBenchLeader78.460.5
Agents & tools scoreBenchLeader–53.8
Instruction following scoreBenchLeader–73.7
Maths scoreBenchLeader–56.7
Blended price $/MBenchLeader$16.00$4.81
Output speedBenchLeader72 tok/s74 tok/s
Time to first answerBenchLeader3.0 s95.6 s
Context windowBenchLeader1,000,000 tokens400,000 tokens
Reasoning
GPQA DiamondEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–91.4%
Humanity's Last ExamScale AI / CAIS–27.8%†
SimpleBenchSimpleBench–45.8%†
Arena Hard PromptsArena (LMArena)–1497†
LiveBench 2.0 ReasoningLiveBench88.8%†–
LiveBench 1.0 ReasoningLiveBench–83.2%†
GPQA Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis–90.3%
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)Artificial Analysis74.3%37.7%
HLE-Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis80.2%–
GPQA Diamond (Vals)Vals AI–91.7%
Kagi LLM BenchmarkKagi LLM Benchmark–73.3%†
ARC-AGI-1ARC Prize97.5%86.2%
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize92.5%52.9%
ARC-AGI-3ARC Prize94.9%–
CritPtArtificial Analysis35.4%11.6%
CritPt v2 hard subset (AA)Artificial Analysis76.5%–
MysteryMechanismVals AI51.8%†–
SciPredictScale AI SEAL–20.6%†
Chess PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–48.0%
Mystery Game PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–22.0%†
CL-benchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–18.2%†
LMCAEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–43.9%
DTBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–90.9%
ForecastBenchForecastBench–64.2%†
Coding
SWE-bench Verified (Epoch)Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–73.8%†
Show all 146 benchmarks
MetricPublisherClaude Fable 5.2 (max)GPT-5.2 (xhigh)
Coding
WeirdMLWeirdML–72.2%
GSO-BenchGSO-Bench–27.4%†
Arena CodingArena (LMArena)–1515†
Arena WebDevArena (LMArena)–1420†
LiveBench 2.0 CodingLiveBench79.2%†–
LiveBench 1.0 CodingLiveBench–76.1%†
SciCode (AA)Artificial Analysis67.7%–
LiveCodeBenchVals AI–85.4%
SWE-bench (Vals)Vals AI–75.8%
SWE-Bench ProScale AI SEAL–29.9%†
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)SWE-bench–69.0%†
SWE-bench Verified (any scaffold)SWE-bench–72.8%†
Code Migration v1.1Vals AI83.3%†–
ProgramBenchVals AI19.0%†–
SWE-bench MultimodalVals AI62.3%†–
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI93.8%†53.5%
SWE-Bench Pro (private)Scale AI SEAL–29.9%†
ALE-BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–1249.8†
AlgoTuneAlgoTune–2.0†
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis59.6%–
Design Arena WebsiteDesign Arena–1191
FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis56.2%–
FrontierCode 2.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis48.8%–
LiveCodeBench (AA)Artificial Analysis–88.9%
Agents & tools
Terminal-BenchTerminal-Bench–64.9%†
GDPvalOpenAI–49.7%†
Remote Labor IndexScale AI / CAIS–2.1%†
LiveBench Long AgenticLiveBench82.9%†–
LiveBench BrowserLiveBench86.9%†–
LiveBench Agentic CodingLiveBench–50.3%†
Terminal-Bench HardArtificial Analysis–47.0%
τ²-Bench Telecom (AA)Artificial Analysis–84.8%
MCP AtlasScale AI SEAL–67.6%
BFCL OverallBerkeley Function Calling Leaderboard–55.9%†
τ²-benchτ²-bench–84.8%†
τ³-bench Bankingτ²-bench–32.2%†
GDPval-AA v2.1Artificial Analysis1831–
τ³-Banking (AA)Artificial Analysis–11.1%†
Finance Agent v2.1Vals AI69.5%†–
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1Vals AI5.0%†–
Legal Research BenchVals AI46.1%†–
Poker AgentVals AI–1131.8%†
Tax Agent BenchVals AI32.1%†–
Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Vals)Vals AI–51.7%†
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals)Vals AI65.2%†–
Terminal-Bench ScienceVals AI55.7%†–
Arena SearchArena (LMArena)–1161†
DeepResearch BenchDeepResearch Bench–41.1%†
METR Time HorizonsMETR–75.3%†
Vending-Bench 2Andon Labs–3591.3†
AutomationBenchArtificial Analysis76.4%–
GDP.pdf (AA)Artificial Analysis24.2%–
Harvey LAB-AA v1.1Harvey7.2%–
AA-Briefcase v1.1Artificial Analysis1785–
Design Arena AgenticDesign Arena–1060†
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis73.3%–
Maths
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–67.4%
FrontierMath Tier 4Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–31.7%
OTIS Mock AIMEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–96.1%
ProofBenchVals AI–15.0%
LiveBench MathematicsLiveBench–93.2%†
AIME (Vals)Vals AI–96.9%
MGSMVals AI–94.0%
AIME 2026MathArena–98.3%†
HMMT February 2026MathArena–97.0%†
MathArena ApexMathArena–13.5%†
Arena MathsArena (LMArena)–1453†
Knowledge
SimpleQA VerifiedEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–37.1%
LiveBench 2.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench81.5%†–
LiveBench ResearchLiveBench94.5%†–
LiveBench 1.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench–78.2%†
AA-Omniscience v1.1Artificial Analysis66.8–
MMLU-ProVals AI–86.2%
LegalBenchVals AI–82.8%
CorpFinVals AI–65.9%
TaxEvalVals AI–75.8%
MedQAVals AI–94.1%
MultiNRCScale AI SEAL–42.2%†
BioMysteryBenchVals AI83.7%†–
CaseLaw v2Vals AI–66.0%
Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1Vals AI77.4%†–
MedCodeVals AI–49.8%
MedScribeVals AI–84.4%
DrugDiscoveryBenchScale AI SEAL–29.3%
EBR-benchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–23.0%
AA-Omniscience v1.1: accuracyArtificial Analysis79.1%–
AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucinationArtificial Analysis40.7%–
Global-MMLU-Lite (AA)Artificial Analysis–89.8%†
HealthBench Professional (AA)OpenAI67.7%–
Instruction following
LiveBench LanguageLiveBench–79.8%†
LiveBench Instruction FollowingLiveBench–61.8%†
IFBenchArtificial Analysis–75.4%
TutorBenchScale AI SEAL–53.5%†
Arena Instruction FollowingArena (LMArena)–1457†
Human preference
Arena TextArena (LMArena)–1476†
Arena Creative WritingArena (LMArena)–1432†
Arena Multi-turnArena (LMArena)–1495†
Arena Longer QueriesArena (LMArena)–1472†
Multimodal
Arena VisionArena (LMArena)–1268†
LiveBench DesignLiveBench85.1%†–
MMMU-ProArtificial Analysis–74.6%†
VISTAScale AI SEAL–46.6%†
MMMU-Pro (Vals)Vals AI–86.7%
MortgageTaxVals AI–67.1%
VPCTEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–84.0%
AA-3DArtificial Analysis1271–
Long context
AA-LCR v1.1Artificial Analysis83.3%82.7%
Arena DocumentArena (LMArena)–1425†
Composite
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–154.4†
LiveBench 2.0LiveBench84.9%†–
LiveBench 1.0LiveBench–74.6%†
AA Intelligence Index v5.0Artificial Analysis64.6–
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis–30.4
AA Progress Index v1Artificial Analysis–295.5
Vals IndexVals AI71.3†–
Vals Finance IndexVals AI63.6%†–
Vals RSI IndexVals AI–15.8%
Vals Science IndexVals AI63.7%†–
Safety & honesty
FORTRESSScale AI SEAL–17.5%†
MASKScale AI SEAL–86.7%†
PropensityBenchScale AI SEAL–34.4%†

Data as of 2026-11-09. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.

What changed

  • GPT-5.2 (xhigh): 1 new result (AA Progress Index v1).
  • GPT-5.2 (xhigh): 1 new result (Vals RSI Index).
  • GPT-5.2 (xhigh): BenchLeader Index 60.8 → 60.3.
  • GPT-5.2 (xhigh): 1 score revision.
  • GPT-5.2 (xhigh): 1 new result (DrugDiscoveryBench).

Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs

Claude Fable 5.2 vs GPT-5.2: questions

Is Claude Fable 5.2 better than GPT-5.2?
Claude Fable 5.2 (max) leads on quality: 69.4 vs 60.0. 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.
Claude Fable 5.2 vs GPT-5.2: which is cheaper, and will that change?
GPT-5.2 is cheaper today: $4.81 against $16.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token. No price change has been announced for either.
Is Claude Fable 5.2 or GPT-5.2 better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.2 scores higher in coding (80 vs 63 on the category index, where 50 is average).
Which is faster, Claude Fable 5.2 or GPT-5.2?
GPT-5.2 streams faster (74 vs 72 output tokens per second, Artificial Analysis 7-day median).
Which is better for long documents?
They are level on long-context benchmarks (66 vs 66). Claude Fable 5.2 accepts more context: 1,000,000 against 400,000 tokens for GPT-5.2.
More questions (3)
Which has lower latency?
Claude Fable 5.2 answers first: 3.0 s against 95.6 s to the first answer token, as Artificial Analysis measures it. Reasoning effort drives most of this: a higher setting thinks longer before it answers.
Do independent benchmarks agree on Claude Fable 5.2 vs GPT-5.2?
Across the 5 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 5, GPT-5.2 leads 0. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5.2 ahead.
When was Claude Fable 5.2 released?
Claude Fable 5.2 was released on 9 Nov 2026.