BenchLeader
Menu
Best LLMsChoose a modelCoding plansLeaderboardsModelsBenchmarksProvidersReleases12

Claude Fable 5.2 vs Grok 4.6

Full profiles: Claude Fable 5.2 (Anthropic) and Grok 4.6 (SpaceXAI): every benchmark, price and rank.

Updated · Data from 8 sources

As of 9 Nov 2026, Claude Fable 5.2 is ahead of Grok 4.6 on quality (69.4 vs 60.5 on the BenchLeader Index), but Grok 4.6 is 5.3× cheaper at $3.00 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 Grok 4.6 scores 60.5 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
  • Claude Fable 5.2 costs $16.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 9 Nov 2026).
  • Grok 4.6 costs $3.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 9 Nov 2026).
  • Of the 11 benchmarks both models have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 11 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
Claude Fable 5.2 benchmarks max Anthropic Grok 4.6 benchmarks high SpaceXAIAdd 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 61 category score; SciCode (AA) 67.7% vs 56.5%High
ReasoningClaude Fable 5.278 vs 64 category score; ARC-AGI-2 92.5% vs 65.1%High
KnowledgeClaude Fable 5.282 vs 60 category scoreHigh
Long documentsClaude Fable 5.266 vs 65 category score; AA-LCR v1.1 83.3% vs 80.3%Medium
Chat quality (human preference)–Only Grok 4.6 has an Arena rating (64 category score)Not comparable
Lowest costGrok 4.6$3.00 vs $16.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.144 vs $0.640–
Fastest first answerClaude Fable 5.23.0 s (Claude Fable 5.2 (max)) vs 29.1 s (Grok 4.6 (high)) 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 60.5.
  • Claude Fable 5.2 (max) is stronger in coding, knowledge, long context, reasoning.
  • Grok 4.6 (high) is stronger in agents & tools, human preference, maths, multimodal.
  • Grok 4.6 (high) is 5.3× cheaper ($3.00 vs $16.00 per 1M blended).

At a glance

SpecClaude Fable 5.2Grok 4.6
DeveloperAnthropicSpaceXAI
Released9 Nov 202611 Aug 2026
Context window (tokens)1,000,000500,000
Compared atClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Grok 4.6 (high)
Open weightsNoNo
Price in / out / cached input per 1M$8.00 / $40.00 / $0.200$2.00 / $6.00 / $0.500

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)Grok 4.6 (high)Leader
Reasoning78.463.6Claude Fable 5.2
Coding80.261.4Claude Fable 5.2
Agents & tools–57.9not comparable
Maths–63.4not comparable
Knowledge81.759.8Claude Fable 5.2
Human preference–64.2not comparable
Multimodal–60.0not comparable
Long context66.464.9Claude Fable 5.2

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: 66.4Grok 4.6, Reasoning: 63.6Grok 4.6, Coding: 61.4Grok 4.6, Knowledge: 59.8Grok 4.6, Long context: 64.9

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

ModelIndex

Where sources disagree

Across the 11 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 11, Grok 4.6 leads 0. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5.2 ahead.

Overall indexClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Grok 4.6 (high)Leader
BenchLeader Index69.460.5Claude Fable 5.2
AA Intelligence Index v5.064.631.0†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.

MeasureClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Grok 4.6 (high)
Blended price per 1M tokens$16.00$3.00
Input / output per 1M$8.00 / $40.00$2.00 / $6.00
Cached input per 1M$0.200$0.500
Price per task: chat reply$0.015$0.0026
Price per task: summarize a 30-page report$0.120$0.028
Price per task: code edit$0.108$0.021
Price per task: agentic coding session$0.640$0.144
Price per task: structured extraction$0.024$0.0052
Agentic coding session, input mostly cached$0.289$0.076
Cost per benchmark task (AA Index)$26.54–
Output tokens per task (AA Index)274k–
Of which reasoning193k–
Output speed72 tok/s72 tok/s
Time to first answer3.0 s29.1 s
Time to a complete answer–57.7 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. Grok 4.6 (high) scores 60.5 and takes 29 s to its first answer token; Grok 4.6 (medium) scores 59.5 in 22 s, Grok 4.6 (xhigh) scores 57.6 in 29 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

130 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)Grok 4.6 (high)
BenchLeader IndexBenchLeader69.460.5
Coding scoreBenchLeader80.261.4
Knowledge scoreBenchLeader81.759.8
Long context scoreBenchLeader66.464.9
Reasoning scoreBenchLeader78.463.6
Agents & tools scoreBenchLeader–57.9
Human preference scoreBenchLeader–64.2
Maths scoreBenchLeader–63.4
Multimodal scoreBenchLeader–60.0
Blended price $/MBenchLeader$16.00$3.00
Output speedBenchLeader72 tok/s72 tok/s
Time to first answerBenchLeader3.0 s29.1 s
Context windowBenchLeader1,000,000 tokens500,000 tokens
Reasoning
GPQA DiamondEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–94.0%
SimpleBenchSimpleBench–75.9%†
Arena Hard PromptsArena (LMArena)–1481
LiveBench 2.0 ReasoningLiveBench88.8%†91.2%†
LiveBench 1.0 ReasoningLiveBench–90.5%†
GPQA Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis–95.0%
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)Artificial Analysis74.3%42.9%
HLE-Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis80.2%21.5%†
GPQA Diamond (Vals)Vals AI–94.7%
ARC-AGI-1ARC Prize97.5%87.0%
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize92.5%65.1%
ARC-AGI-3ARC Prize94.9%2.1%†
CritPtArtificial Analysis35.4%17.1%
CritPt v2 hard subset (AA)Artificial Analysis76.5%40.0%†
MysteryMechanismVals AI51.8%†30.6%
Chess PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–33.0%
Mystery Game PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–34.0%†
LMCAEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–48.5%†
DTBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–97.3%†
ForecastBenchForecastBench–65.5%†
Coding
SciCodeSciCode–56.5%
WeirdMLWeirdML–67.3%
FrontierCodeCognition–48.0%†
Arena CodingArena (LMArena)–1508
Arena WebDevArena (LMArena)–1618
Show all 130 benchmarks
MetricPublisherClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Grok 4.6 (high)
Coding
LiveBench 2.0 CodingLiveBench79.2%†76.7%†
LiveBench 1.0 CodingLiveBench–76.8%†
SciCode (AA)Artificial Analysis67.7%56.5%
LiveCodeBenchVals AI–88.2%
IOIVals AI–47.6%
SWE-bench (Vals)Vals AI–95.6%
Code MigrationVals AI–44.6%
Code Migration v1.1Vals AI83.3%†–
ProgramBenchVals AI19.0%†1.0%
SWE-bench MultimodalVals AI62.3%†–
Vibe Code Bench 1-100Vals AI–14.8%
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI93.8%†76.2%
MirrorCodeEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–41.1%†
DeepSWE v1.1Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–65.2%
CursorBenchCursor–40.4%
ALE-BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–1508.1†
FrontierSWEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–25.3%†
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis59.6%21.2%
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis–88.4%
Startrise FrontendStartrise–72.1%†
GameBench 2 OverallDuelLab GameBench 2–59.0†
GameBench 2 by reasoning settingDuelLab GameBench 2–68.6†
Design Arena WebsiteDesign Arena–1284†
FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis56.2%–
FrontierCode 2.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis48.8%19.8%†
Agents & tools
Terminal-BenchTerminal-Bench–19.7%
APEX-AgentsMercor–65.3%†
Arena AgentArena (LMArena)–-0.2†
LiveBench Long AgenticLiveBench82.9%†18.7%†
LiveBench BrowserLiveBench86.9%†49.4%†
LiveBench Agentic CodingLiveBench–57.0%†
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Vals AI–78.3%
GDPval-AA v2.1Artificial Analysis1831–
τ³-Banking (AA)Artificial Analysis–50.7%
Analyst Agent (AA)Artificial Analysis–41.3%
CyberBenchVals AI–67.7%
Finance Agent v2Vals AI–53.7%
Finance Agent v2.1Vals AI69.5%†–
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1Vals AI5.0%†–
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1Vals AI–15.8%
Legal Research BenchVals AI46.1%†48.1%
SkillsBenchVals AI–55.8%
Tax Agent BenchVals AI32.1%†33.7%
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals)Vals AI65.2%†17.2%
Terminal-Bench ScienceVals AI55.7%†11.4%
Time Horizon Index: KSPVals AI–5.8%
Vending-Bench 2Andon Labs–9047.0†
AutomationBenchArtificial Analysis76.4%66.7%
GDP.pdf (AA)Artificial Analysis24.2%17.0%
Harvey LAB-AA v1.1Harvey7.2%–
EnterpriseOps-GymArtificial Analysis–48.3%
AA-Briefcase v1.1Artificial Analysis17851528
Design Arena AgenticDesign Arena–1233†
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis73.3%6.2%
Maths
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–66.0%†
FrontierMath Tier 4Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–31.7%†
OTIS Mock AIMEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–97.8%
ProofBenchVals AI–51.0%†
LiveBench MathematicsLiveBench–92.6%†
Arena MathsArena (LMArena)–1444
Knowledge
SimpleQA VerifiedEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–49.3%
LiveBench 2.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench81.5%†75.3%†
LiveBench ResearchLiveBench94.5%†88.8%†
LiveBench 1.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench–73.9%†
AA-Omniscience v1.1Artificial Analysis66.824.9†
MMLU-ProVals AI–89.4%
LegalBenchVals AI–86.3%
CorpFinVals AI–66.2%
TaxEvalVals AI–71.1%
BioMysteryBenchVals AI83.7%†72.2%
Excel Modeling BenchmarkVals AI–62.7%
Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1Vals AI77.4%†–
MedCodeVals AI–44.7%
MedScribeVals AI–86.5%
Public Benefits Bench v1.1Vals AI–66.8%
EBR-benchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–30.5%†
GDP.pdfEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–16.0%
AA-Omniscience v1.1: accuracyArtificial Analysis79.1%46.2%†
AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucinationArtificial Analysis40.7%60.3%†
HealthBench Professional (AA)OpenAI67.7%–
Instruction following
LiveBench LanguageLiveBench–83.7%†
LiveBench Instruction FollowingLiveBench–71.9%†
Arena Instruction FollowingArena (LMArena)–1451
Human preference
Arena TextArena (LMArena)–1456
Arena Creative WritingArena (LMArena)–1443
Arena Multi-turnArena (LMArena)–1449
Arena Longer QueriesArena (LMArena)–1476
Multimodal
Arena VisionArena (LMArena)–1264
LiveBench DesignLiveBench85.1%†76.3%†
MortgageTaxVals AI–64.2%
Blueprint-Bench 2Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–33.2%†
AA-3DArtificial Analysis1271–
Long context
AA-LCR v1.1Artificial Analysis83.3%80.3%
Arena DocumentArena (LMArena)–1451
MLCRArtificial Analysis–15.6%
Composite
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–157.9†
LiveBench 2.0LiveBench84.9%†63.5%†
LiveBench 1.0LiveBench–78.0%†
AA Intelligence Index v5.0Artificial Analysis64.631.0†
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis–44.3
AA Progress Index v1Artificial Analysis–321.5
Vals IndexVals AI71.3†–
Vals Finance IndexVals AI63.6%†–
Vals RSI IndexVals AI–25.5%†
Vals Science IndexVals AI63.7%†38.1%

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

DuelLab GameBench 2, release gb2-20261103-eaea31df94e6 (https://benchmarks.duellab.org/releases/gb2-20261103-eaea31df94e6/), CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Scores mapped to BenchLeader model names; not endorsed by DuelLab.

What changed

  • Grok 4.6 (high): 2 score revisions.
  • Grok 4.6 (high): 1 score revision.
  • Grok 4.6 (high): 1 new result (AA Progress Index v1).
  • Grok 4.6 (high): BenchLeader Index 61.4 → 60.9.
  • Grok 4.6 (high): 2 new results (Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1, Vals Science Index).
  • Grok 4.6 (high): 1 score revision.
  • Grok 4.6 (high): 3 new results (GDPval-AA v2.1, normalised score, AA-Omniscience v1.1: accuracy, AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucination).
  • Grok 4.6 (high): 1 new result (ProgramBench); 1 score revision.
  • Grok 4.6 (high): 1 score revision.
  • Grok 4.6 (high): 1 new result (Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)).

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

Claude Fable 5.2 vs Grok 4.6: questions

Is Claude Fable 5.2 better than Grok 4.6?
Claude Fable 5.2 (max) leads on quality: 69.4 vs 60.5. 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.
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Grok 4.6: which is cheaper, and will that change?
Grok 4.6 is cheaper today: $3.00 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 Grok 4.6 better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.2 scores higher in coding (80 vs 61 on the category index, where 50 is average).
Which is faster, Claude Fable 5.2 or Grok 4.6?
Grok 4.6 streams faster (72 vs 72 output tokens per second, Artificial Analysis 7-day median).
Which is better for long documents?
Claude Fable 5.2 scores higher on long-context benchmarks (66 vs 65). Claude Fable 5.2 accepts more context: 1,000,000 against 500,000 tokens for Grok 4.6.
More questions (3)
Which has lower latency?
Claude Fable 5.2 answers first: 3.0 s against 29.1 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 Grok 4.6?
Across the 11 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 11, Grok 4.6 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.