BenchLeader
Menu
Best LLMsChoose a modelLeaderboardsModelsBenchmarksProvidersReleases12

Claude Fable 5 vs Grok 4.6

Full profiles: Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic) and Grok 4.6 (SpaceXAI): every benchmark, price and rank.

Updated · Data from 9 sources

As of 24 Oct 2026, Claude Fable 5 (max) leads on quality (69.3 vs 64.2 on the BenchLeader Index), but Grok 4.6 (medium) costs 6.7× less, so it is the better buy unless you need the extra quality. Pick Claude Fable 5 for coding (74 vs 62); pick Grok 4.6 for agents & tools (74 vs 65).

Claude Fable 5 benchmarks max Anthropic Grok 4.6 benchmarks medium SpaceXAIOpen in the comparison tool

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 574 vs 62 category score; SciCode 61.0% vs 55.9%High
Agents & tool useGrok 4.674 vs 65 category score; τ³-Banking (AA) 44.3% vs 38.1%High
ReasoningClaude Fable 574 vs 64 category score; ARC-AGI-2 89.2% vs 61.3%High
KnowledgeClaude Fable 581 vs 74 category score; AA-Omniscience 43.3 vs 28Medium
Long documentsEither66 vs 66 category score; AA-LCR 82.3% vs 81.0%Either
Lowest costGrok 4.6$3.00 vs $20.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.144 vs $0.800–
Fastest first answerGrok 4.625.5 s (Grok 4.6 (medium)) vs 59.8 s (Claude Fable 5 (max)) 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 (max) leads on quality: 69.3 vs 64.2.
  • Claude Fable 5 (max) is stronger in coding, composite, instruction following, knowledge, long context, maths, reasoning.
  • Grok 4.6 (medium) is stronger in agents & tools.
  • Grok 4.6 (medium) is 6.7× cheaper ($3.00 vs $20.00 per 1M blended).

At a glance

SpecClaude Fable 5Grok 4.6
DeveloperAnthropicSpaceXAI
Released9 Jun 202611 Aug 2026
Context window (tokens)1,000,000500,000
Compared atClaude Fable 5 (max)Grok 4.6 (medium)
Open weightsNoNo
Price in / out / cached input per 1M$10.00 / $50.00 / $1.00$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 (max)Grok 4.6 (medium)Leader
Reasoning73.864.4Claude Fable 5
Coding73.862.3Claude Fable 5
Agents & tools65.073.5Grok 4.6
Maths72.4–not comparable
Knowledge81.074.1Claude Fable 5
Instruction following63.1–not comparable
Long context66.365.6level
Composite85.077.4Claude Fable 5

Where sources disagree

Across the 17 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5 leads 13, Grok 4.6 leads 4. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5 ahead.

Overall indexClaude Fable 5 (max)Grok 4.6 (medium)Leader
BenchLeader Index69.364.2Claude Fable 5
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.249.642.8Claude Fable 5
Arena Text1503†1456Claude Fable 5

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; suite cost is what Artificial Analysis paid to run its whole Intelligence Index.

MeasureClaude Fable 5 (max)Grok 4.6 (medium)
Blended price per 1M tokens$20.00$3.00
Input / output per 1M$10.00 / $50.00$2.00 / $6.00
Cached input per 1M$1.00$0.500
Price per task: chat reply$0.019$0.0026
Price per task: summarize a 30-page report$0.150$0.028
Price per task: code edit$0.135$0.021
Price per task: agentic coding session$0.800$0.144
Price per task: structured extraction$0.030$0.0052
Cost to run a full benchmark suite$8.75$1.14
Output speed70 tok/s84 tok/s
Time to first answer59.8 s25.5 s
Time to a complete answer67.0 s31.4 s

Per token is not per task: on Artificial Analysis' full suite Claude Fable 5 (max) cost $8.75 and Grok 4.6 (medium) $1.14, because Claude Fable 5 (max) used about 1.1× as many tokens for the same work.

Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Claude Fable 5 (max) scores 69.3 and takes 60 s to its first answer token; Claude Fable 5 scores 67.1 in 4 s, Claude Fable 5 (high) scores 64.6 in 4 s. Grok 4.6 (medium) scores 64.2 and takes 25 s to its first answer token; Grok 4.6 (high) scores 62.9 in 25 s, Grok 4.6 (xhigh) scores 62.5 in 28 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

133 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 (max)Grok 4.6 (medium)
BenchLeader IndexBenchLeader69.364.2
Agents & tools scoreBenchLeader65.073.5
Coding scoreBenchLeader73.862.3
Composite scoreBenchLeader85.077.4
Instruction following scoreBenchLeader63.1–
Knowledge scoreBenchLeader81.074.1
Long context scoreBenchLeader66.365.6
Maths scoreBenchLeader72.4–
Reasoning scoreBenchLeader73.864.4
Blended price $/MBenchLeader$20.00$3.00
Output speedBenchLeader70 tok/s84 tok/s
Time to first answerBenchLeader59.8 s25.5 s
Context windowBenchLeader1,000,000 tokens500,000 tokens
Reasoning
GPQA DiamondEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub85.9%94.0%†
SimpleBenchSimpleBench81.9%75.9%†
Arena Hard PromptsArena (LMArena)1529†1482†
LiveBench 2.0 ReasoningLiveBench89.7%†91.2%†
LiveBench 1.0 ReasoningLiveBench89.7%90.5%†
GPQA Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis92.6%93.5%
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)Artificial Analysis55.5%42.1%
GPQA Diamond (Vals)Vals AI93.2%†94.7%†
EnigmaEvalScale AI SEAL39.3%†–
Kagi LLM BenchmarkKagi LLM Benchmark88.8%†–
ARC-AGI-1ARC Prize98.5%87.5%
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize89.2%61.3%
ARC-AGI-3ARC Prize–2.1%†
CritPtArtificial Analysis28.6%17.7%
MysteryMechanismVals AI–30.6%†
Chess PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub47.0%33.0%†
Mystery Game PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub52.0%34.0%†
LMCAEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub60.3%48.5%†
DTBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub98.4%97.3%†
ForecastBenchForecastBench66.0%65.5%†
BTF-3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub13.0%†–
Coding
SciCodeSciCode61.0%55.9%
WeirdMLWeirdML91.9%67.3%†
FrontierCodeCognition53.5%†48.0%†
GSO-BenchGSO-Bench78.4%†–
Show all 133 benchmarks
MetricPublisherClaude Fable 5 (max)Grok 4.6 (medium)
Coding
Arena CodingArena (LMArena)1551†1510†
Arena WebDevArena (LMArena)1624†1617†
LiveBench 2.0 CodingLiveBench98.3%†89.1%†
LiveBench 1.0 CodingLiveBench86.0%76.8%†
LiveCodeBenchVals AI89.8%†88.2%†
IOIVals AI–47.6%†
SWE-bench (Vals)Vals AI95.0%†95.6%†
Code MigrationVals AI55.1%†44.6%†
ProgramBenchVals AI2.0%†1.0%†
Vibe Code Bench 1-100Vals AI–14.8%†
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI90.3%†76.2%†
SWE Atlas: Codebase QnAScale AI SEAL39.0%†–
SWE Atlas: RefactoringScale AI SEAL54.8%†–
SWE Atlas: Test WritingScale AI SEAL55.6%†–
MirrorCodeEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub63.9%†–
Surface Evolver BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub95.0%†–
DeepSWE v1.1Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub69.7%67.5%
CursorBenchCursor–36.1%
ALE-BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub2041.3†1508.1†
FrontierSWEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub47.0%25.3%†
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis42.4%13.1%
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis84.6%84.3%
Startrise FrontendStartrise73.8%†72.1%†
Agents & tools
Terminal-BenchTerminal-Bench44.5%20.3%†
Remote Labor IndexScale AI / CAIS15.8%†–
APEX-AgentsMercor63.6%†65.3%†
Arena AgentArena (LMArena)8.3†0.7†
LiveBench Long AgenticLiveBench53.2%†40.7%†
LiveBench BrowserLiveBench92.0%†64.0%†
LiveBench Agentic CodingLiveBench62.2%57.0%†
Terminal-Bench HardArtificial Analysis62.9%–
τ²-Bench Telecom (AA)Artificial Analysis98.5%–
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Vals AI80.5%†78.3%†
MCP AtlasScale AI SEAL83.3%†–
HiL-BenchScale AI SEAL56.3%†–
τ³-bench Bankingτ²-bench39.7%–
τ³-Banking (AA)Artificial Analysis38.1%44.3%
Analyst Agent (AA)Artificial Analysis48.8%41.3%†
CyberBenchVals AI–67.7%†
Finance Agent v2Vals AI56.3%†53.7%†
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1Vals AI11.3%†15.8%†
Legal Research BenchVals AI49.5%†48.1%†
SkillsBenchVals AI–55.8%†
Tax Agent BenchVals AI38.3%†33.1%†
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals)Vals AI41.4%†17.2%†
Terminal-Bench ScienceVals AI15.7%†11.4%†
Time Horizon Index: KSPVals AI–5.8%†
Web Search IndexVals AI46.9%†–
Arena SearchArena (LMArena)1229†–
PostTrainBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub41.8%–
GBAEvalEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub74.5%†–
Vending-Bench 2Andon Labs4966.69047.0†
AutomationBenchArtificial Analysis54.1%63.1%
GDP.pdf (AA)Artificial Analysis24.0%17.8%
EnterpriseOps-GymArtificial Analysis51.1%48.3%†
AA-Briefcase v1.1Artificial Analysis15371531†
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis–6.2%†
Maths
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub87.0%66.0%†
FrontierMath Tier 4Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub90.2%31.7%†
OTIS Mock AIMEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub99.7%97.8%†
ProofBenchVals AI95.0%51.0%†
LiveBench MathematicsLiveBench96.0%92.6%†
Arena MathsArena (LMArena)1521†1445†
Knowledge
SimpleQA VerifiedEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub70.7%†49.3%†
LiveBench 2.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench80.5%†75.3%†
LiveBench ResearchLiveBench86.9%†84.5%†
LiveBench 1.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench80.5%73.9%†
AA-OmniscienceArtificial Analysis43.328
MMLU-ProVals AI91.5%†89.4%†
LegalBenchVals AI88.6%†86.3%†
CorpFinVals AI71.8%†66.2%†
TaxEvalVals AI76.9%†71.1%†
PRBench FinanceScale AI SEAL53.9%†–
PRBench LegalScale AI SEAL52.6%†–
BioMysteryBenchVals AI–72.2%†
Excel Modeling BenchmarkVals AI73.7%†62.7%†
MedCodeVals AI56.1%†44.7%†
MedScribeVals AI88.5%†86.5%†
Public Benefits Bench v1.1Vals AI70.4%†66.8%†
EBR-benchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub39.5%30.5%†
GDP.pdfEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub29.8%16.0%†
AA-Omniscience: accuracyArtificial Analysis65.3%41.9%
AA-Omniscience: non-hallucinationArtificial Analysis36.4%76.0%
Instruction following
LiveBench LanguageLiveBench90.7%83.7%†
LiveBench Instruction FollowingLiveBench75.8%71.9%†
IFBenchArtificial Analysis63.5%–
Arena Instruction FollowingArena (LMArena)1508†1452†
Human preference
Arena TextArena (LMArena)1503†1456†
EQ-Bench 4EQ-Bench1340†–
Arena Creative WritingArena (LMArena)1501†1443†
Arena Multi-turnArena (LMArena)1517†1448†
Arena Longer QueriesArena (LMArena)1522†1475†
Multimodal
Arena VisionArena (LMArena)1325†1263†
LiveBench DesignLiveBench84.7%†79.8%†
MMMU-Pro (Vals)Vals AI89.3%†–
MortgageTaxVals AI68.9%†64.2%†
SAGEVals AI51.9%†28.9%†
Blueprint-Bench 2Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub38.6%†33.2%†
Long context
AA-LCRArtificial Analysis82.3%81.0%
Arena DocumentArena (LMArena)1499†1461†
MLCRArtificial Analysis20.6%18.3%
Composite
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub163.4†156.6†
LiveBench 2.0LiveBench83.6%†74.9%†
LiveBench 1.0LiveBench83.0%78.0%†
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis49.642.8
Vals RSI IndexVals AI24.3%25.5%†
Vals Science IndexVals AI–38.1%†
Vals Multimodal IndexVals AI74.2%†–

Data as of 2026-10-24. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.

What changed

  • Claude Fable 5 (max): 1 new result (Vals RSI Index).
  • Claude Fable 5 (max): 1 score revision.
  • Grok 4.6 (medium): 1 new result (MLCR).
  • Claude Fable 5 (max): 1 new result (ForecastBench).
  • Claude Fable 5 (max): 4 new results (GDPval-AA v2.1, AA-Omniscience: accuracy, AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination…).
  • Grok 4.6 (medium): 15 new results (AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2, GPQA Diamond (AA), Humanity's Last Exam (AA)…).
  • Claude Fable 5 (max): 1 score revision.
  • Grok 4.6 (medium): 1 score revision.
  • Claude Fable 5 (max): BenchLeader Index 64.6 → 69.1.
  • Claude Fable 5 (max): 23 new results (AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2, GPQA Diamond (AA), Humanity's Last Exam (AA)…).

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

Claude Fable 5 vs Grok 4.6: questions

Is Claude Fable 5 better than Grok 4.6?
Claude Fable 5 (max) leads on quality: 69.3 vs 64.2. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Fable 5 (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-10-24, but check the category scores for your use.
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5 or Grok 4.6, and will that change?
Grok 4.6 is cheaper today: $3.00 against $20.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token. No price change has been announced for either.
Is Claude Fable 5 better than Grok 4.6 for coding?
Claude Fable 5 scores higher in coding (74 vs 62 on the category index, where 50 is average). On SciCode, the top shared coding benchmark, it is 61.0% for Claude Fable 5 against 55.9% for Grok 4.6.
Is Claude Fable 5 better than Grok 4.6 for agents and tool use?
Grok 4.6 scores higher in agentic tasks (74 vs 65 on the category index, where 50 is average). On τ³-Banking (AA), the top shared agents & tools benchmark, it is 38.1% for Claude Fable 5 against 44.3% for Grok 4.6.
Which is better for long documents?
They are level on long-context benchmarks (66 vs 66). Claude Fable 5 accepts more context: 1,000,000 against 500,000 tokens for Grok 4.6.
Which has lower latency?
Grok 4.6 (medium) answers first: 25.5 s against 59.8 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.
Which is faster, Claude Fable 5 or Grok 4.6?
Grok 4.6 streams faster: 84 against 70 output tokens per second.
Do independent benchmarks agree on Claude Fable 5 vs Grok 4.6?
Across the 17 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5 leads 13, Grok 4.6 leads 4. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5 ahead.
When was Grok 4.6 released?
Grok 4.6 was released on 11 Aug 2026.