Claude Fable 5.2 vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Full profiles: Claude Fable 5.2 (Anthropic) and Qwen3.6 Plus (Alibaba): every benchmark, price and rank.
Updated · Data from 9 sources
As of 9 Nov 2026, Claude Fable 5.2 is ahead of Qwen3.6 Plus on quality (69.4 vs 59.1 on the BenchLeader Index), but Qwen3.6 Plus is 14× cheaper at $1.13 vs $16.00 per 1M tokens blended. Claude Fable 5.2 leads in every category we measure both in. Claude Fable 5.2 streams faster.
Key facts (as of 9 Nov 2026)
- Claude Fable 5.2 scores 69.4 on the BenchLeader Index and Qwen3.6 Plus scores 59.1 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
- Claude Fable 5.2 costs $16.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 9 Nov 2026).
- Qwen3.6 Plus costs $1.13 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 9 Nov 2026).
- Claude Fable 5.2 streams faster than Qwen3.6 Plus (Artificial Analysis, 7-day median, 9 Nov 2026).
- Of the 3 benchmarks both models have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 3 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
Claude Fable 5.2 benchmarks 
Qwen3.6 Plus 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 51 category score | High |
| Reasoning | Claude Fable 5.2 | 78 vs 63 category score; Humanity's Last Exam (AA) 74.3% vs 27.9% | High |
| Knowledge | Claude Fable 5.2 | 82 vs 57 category score | High |
| Long documents | Claude Fable 5.2 | 66 vs 64 category score; AA-LCR v1.1 83.3% vs 78.3% | Medium |
| Chat quality (human preference) | – | Only Qwen3.6 Plus has an Arena rating (63 category score) | Not comparable |
| Lowest cost | Qwen3.6 Plus | $1.13 vs $16.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.042 vs $0.640 | – |
| Fastest first answer | Claude Fable 5.2 | 3.0 s (Claude Fable 5.2 (max)) vs 45.1 s (Qwen3.6 Plus) to the first answer token | – |
| 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 59.1.
- Claude Fable 5.2 (max) is stronger in coding, knowledge, long context, reasoning.
- Qwen3.6 Plus is stronger in agents & tools, human preference, instruction following, maths, multimodal.
- Qwen3.6 Plus is 14× cheaper ($1.13 vs $16.00 per 1M blended).
- Claude Fable 5.2 (max) streams 1.4× faster (72 vs 53 tokens per second).
At a glance
| Spec | Claude Fable 5.2 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | Alibaba |
| Released | 9 Nov 2026 | 31 Mar 2026 |
| Context window (tokens) | 1,000,000 | 1,000,000 |
| Compared at | Claude Fable 5.2 (max) | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| Open weights | No | No |
| Price in / out / cached input per 1M | $8.00 / $40.00 / $0.200 | $0.500 / $3.00 / $0.050 |
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) | Qwen3.6 Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 78.4 | 63.1 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Coding | 80.2 | 51.0 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Agents & tools | – | 53.1 | not comparable |
| Maths | – | 57.8 | not comparable |
| Knowledge | 81.7 | 57.2 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Instruction following | – | 73.4 | not comparable |
| Human preference | – | 62.5 | not comparable |
| Multimodal | – | 60.4 | not comparable |
| Long context | 66.4 | 63.8 | Claude 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.
Not drawn, measured for fewer than two of these models: Agents & tools, Maths, Instruction following, Multimodal, Human preference.
ModelIndex
Where sources disagree
Across the 3 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 3, Qwen3.6 Plus leads 0. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5.2 ahead.
| Overall index | Claude Fable 5.2 (max) | Qwen3.6 Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 69.4 | 59.1 | 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) | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $16.00 | $1.13 |
| Input / output per 1M | $8.00 / $40.00 | $0.500 / $3.00 |
| Cached input per 1M | $0.200 | $0.050 |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.015 | $0.0011 |
| Price per task: summarize a 30-page report | $0.120 | $0.0078 |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.108 | $0.0075 |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.640 | $0.042 |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.024 | $0.0016 |
| Agentic coding session, input mostly cached | $0.289 | $0.022 |
| Cost per benchmark task (AA Index) | $26.54 | – |
| Output tokens per task (AA Index) | 274k | – |
| Of which reasoning | 193k | – |
| Output speed | 72 tok/s | 53 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 3.0 s | 45.1 s |
| Time to a complete answer | – | 107.7 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. Qwen3.6 Plus scores 59.1 and takes 45 s to its first answer token. 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
109 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) | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | BenchLeader | 69.4 | 59.1 |
| Coding score | BenchLeader | 80.2 | 51.0 |
| Knowledge score | BenchLeader | 81.7 | 57.2 |
| Long context score | BenchLeader | 66.4 | 63.8 |
| Reasoning score | BenchLeader | 78.4 | 63.1 |
| Agents & tools score | BenchLeader | – | 53.1 |
| Human preference score | BenchLeader | – | 62.5 |
| Instruction following score | BenchLeader | – | 73.4 |
| Maths score | BenchLeader | – | 57.8 |
| Multimodal score | BenchLeader | – | 60.4 |
| Blended price $/M | BenchLeader | $16.00 | $1.13 |
| Output speed | BenchLeader | 72 tok/s | 53 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | BenchLeader | 3.0 s | 45.1 s |
| Context window | BenchLeader | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens |
| Reasoning | |||
| GPQA Diamond | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 88.4% |
| Arena Hard Prompts | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1467 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 88.8%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | – | 75.8% |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 88.2% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 74.3% | 27.9% |
| HLE-Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 80.2% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 87.4% |
| 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% | 2.9% |
| CritPt v2 hard subset (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 76.5% | – |
| MysteryMechanism | Vals AI | 51.8%† | – |
| Chess Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 16.0% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 12.0%† |
| CL-bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 20.3% |
| LMCA | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 33.1% |
| DTBench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 81.9% |
| Coding | |||
| SWE-bench Verified (Epoch) | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 57.9% |
| SciCode | SciCode | – | 40.7% |
| Arena Coding | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1496 |
| Arena WebDev | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1462 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Coding | LiveBench | 79.2%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 Coding | LiveBench | – | 78.2% |
Show all 109 benchmarks
| Metric | Publisher | Claude Fable 5.2 (max) | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | |||
| SciCode (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 67.7% | – |
| LiveCodeBench | Vals AI | – | 86.0% |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 73.4% |
| Code Migration | Vals AI | – | 11.1% |
| Code Migration v1.1 | Vals AI | 83.3%† | – |
| ProgramBench | Vals AI | 19.0%† | 0.0% |
| SWE-bench Multimodal | Vals AI | 62.3%† | – |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 93.8%† | 25.6% |
| ALE-Bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 670.1 |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 59.6% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 61.4% |
| Design Arena Website | Design Arena | – | 1239 |
| 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%† | – |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | LiveBench | – | 41.4% |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | Artificial Analysis | – | 43.9% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 97.7% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 53.2% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1831 | – |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 20.8% |
| Finance Agent v2 | Vals AI | – | 40.9% |
| Finance Agent v2.1 | Vals AI | 69.5%† | – |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | 5.0%† | – |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1 | Vals AI | – | 1.3% |
| Legal Research Bench | Vals AI | 46.1%† | 14.9% |
| Tax Agent Bench | Vals AI | 32.1%† | 7.7% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 44.9% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | 65.2%† | – |
| Terminal-Bench Science | Vals AI | 55.7%† | – |
| Vending-Bench 2 | Andon Labs | – | 5114.9 |
| 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 | |||
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 38.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 93.3% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | LiveBench | – | 83.7% |
| AIME (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 94.6% |
| Arena Maths | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1452 |
| Knowledge | |||
| SimpleQA Verified | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 44.1% |
| LiveBench 2.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 81.5%† | – |
| LiveBench Research | LiveBench | 94.5%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | – | 69.9% |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 66.8 | – |
| MMLU-Pro | Vals AI | – | 87.7% |
| LegalBench | Vals AI | – | 84.2% |
| CorpFin | Vals AI | – | 61.9% |
| TaxEval | Vals AI | – | 74.7% |
| BioMysteryBench | Vals AI | 83.7%† | – |
| CaseLaw v2 | Vals AI | – | 51.5% |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | Vals AI | – | 32.9% |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | 77.4%† | – |
| MedCode | Vals AI | – | 36.9% |
| MedScribe | Vals AI | – | 77.0% |
| 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 | |||
| LiveBench Language | LiveBench | – | 75.0% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | LiveBench | – | 58.3% |
| IFBench | Artificial Analysis | – | 75.2% |
| Arena Instruction Following | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1435 |
| Human preference | |||
| Arena Text | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1443 |
| Arena Creative Writing | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1407 |
| Arena Multi-turn | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1445 |
| Arena Longer Queries | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1455 |
| Multimodal | |||
| LiveBench Design | LiveBench | 85.1%† | – |
| MMMU-Pro | Artificial Analysis | – | 78.0% |
| MMMU-Pro (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 84.2% |
| MortgageTax | Vals AI | – | 68.0% |
| AA-3D | Artificial Analysis | 1271 | – |
| Long context | |||
| AA-LCR v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 83.3% | 78.3% |
| Composite | |||
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 148.8 |
| LiveBench 2.0 | LiveBench | 84.9%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 | LiveBench | – | 68.9% |
| AA Intelligence Index v5.0 | Artificial Analysis | 64.6 | – |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | Artificial Analysis | – | 27.0 |
| AA Progress Index v1 | Artificial Analysis | – | 283.4 |
| Vals Index | Vals AI | 71.3† | – |
| Vals Finance Index | Vals AI | 63.6%† | – |
| Vals Science Index | Vals AI | 63.7%† | – |
| Vals Multimodal Index | Vals AI | – | 51.5% |
Data as of 2026-11-09. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
What changed
- Qwen3.6 Plus: 2 score revisions.
- Qwen3.6 Plus: Qwen3.6 Plus cached input price moved from $0.028/M to $0.050/M (81% up).
- Qwen3.6 Plus: Qwen3.6 Plus cached input price moved from $0.050/M to $0.028/M (45% down).
- Qwen3.6 Plus: Qwen3.6 Plus cached input price moved from $0.028/M to $0.050/M (81% up).
- Qwen3.6 Plus: Qwen3.6 Plus cached input price moved from $0.050/M to $0.028/M (45% down).
- Qwen3.6 Plus: 1 new result (AA Progress Index v1).
- Qwen3.6 Plus: BenchLeader Index 59.7 → 59.2.
- Qwen3.6 Plus: Qwen3.6 Plus cached input price moved from $0.028/M to $0.050/M (81% up).
- Qwen3.6 Plus: Qwen3.6 Plus cached input price moved from $0.050/M to $0.028/M (45% down).
- Qwen3.6 Plus: Qwen3.6 Plus cached input price moved from $0.028/M to $0.050/M (81% up).
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
- Qwen3.6 Plus vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Qwen3.6 Plus vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Qwen3.6 Plus 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 Qwen3.6 Plus: questions
- Is Claude Fable 5.2 better than Qwen3.6 Plus?
- Claude Fable 5.2 (max) leads on quality: 69.4 vs 59.1. 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 Qwen3.6 Plus: which is cheaper, and will that change?
- Qwen3.6 Plus is cheaper today: $1.13 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 Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?
- Claude Fable 5.2 scores higher in coding (80 vs 51 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is faster, Claude Fable 5.2 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
- Claude Fable 5.2 streams faster (72 vs 53 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 64). Both accept 1,000,000 tokens of context.
More questions (3)
- Which has lower latency?
- Claude Fable 5.2 answers first: 3.0 s against 45.1 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 Qwen3.6 Plus?
- Across the 3 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 3, Qwen3.6 Plus 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.