Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen3.8 Max
Claude Fable 5 
Qwen3.8 Max Verdict
- Claude Fable 5 (max) leads on quality: 69.1 vs 64.2.
- Claude Fable 5 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, composite, instruction following, knowledge, long context, maths, reasoning.
- Qwen3.8 Max (max) is stronger in human preference, multimodal.
- Qwen3.8 Max (max) is 6.7× cheaper ($3.00 vs $20.00 per 1M blended).
- Claude Fable 5 (max) streams 1.8× faster (65 vs 37 tokens per second).
| Metric | Claude Fable 5 (max) | Qwen3.8 Max (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 69.1 | 64.2 |
| Agents & tools score | 65.0 | 58.2 |
| Coding score | 74.1 | 64.6 |
| Composite score | 79.8 | 70.7 |
| Instruction following score | 63.0 | – |
| Knowledge score | 81.2 | 62.7 |
| Long context score | 66.4 | 65.4 |
| Maths score | 73.0 | 65.1 |
| Reasoning score | 74.0 | 72.2 |
| Human preference score | – | 68.0 |
| Multimodal score | – | 66.2 |
| Blended price $/M | $20.00 | $3.00 |
| Output speed | 65 tok/s | 37 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 117.7 s | 58.9 s |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| GPQA Diamond | 85.9% | – |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | 87.0% | – |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 90.2% | – |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 99.7% | – |
| Terminal-Bench | 44.5% | 27.0% |
| SimpleBench | 81.9% | – |
| SciCode | 61.0% | 53.2% |
| WeirdML | 91.9% | – |
| APEX-Agents | – | 63.3% |
| ProofBench | 95.0% | 58.0% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | – | 156.4 |
| LMArena Text | – | 1483 |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | – | 1504 |
| LMArena Coding | – | 1524 |
| LMArena WebDev | – | 1672 |
| LMArena Vision | – | 1314 |
| LMArena Agent | – | 2.3 |
| LiveBench | 83.0% | 78.5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 89.7% | 88.2% |
| LiveBench Coding | 86.0% | 72.9% |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | 62.2% | 64.7% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | 96.0% | 91.3% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 80.5% | 78.4% |
| LiveBench Language | 90.7% | 79.7% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 75.8% | 74.1% |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | 49.6 | 45.4 |
| IFBench | 63.5% | – |
| AA-LCR | 82.3% | 80.3% |
| MMMU-Pro | – | 82.8% |
| AA-Omniscience | 43.3 | 12.0 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | 62.9% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 92.6% | 92.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 55.5% | 43.1% |
| SciCode (AA) | 61.0% | 53.2% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | 98.5% | – |
| LiveCodeBench | – | 87.8% |
| MMLU-Pro | – | 88.6% |
| IOI | – | 68.9% |
| LegalBench | – | 83.6% |
| CorpFin | – | 65.8% |
| TaxEval | – | 75.5% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | – | 67.4% |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | – | 85.6% |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | – | 93.7% |
| Vals Index | – | 48.3 |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98.5% | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 89.2% | – |
| CritPt | 28.6% | 20.0% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | 55.6% | 58.6% |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | 38.1% | 51.3% |
| ITBench SRE (AA) | – | 40.3% |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | 48.8% | 45.0% |
| APEX-Agents (AA) | – | 42.4% |
| Code Migration | – | 24.0% |
| CyberBench | – | 28.6% |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | – | 60.1% |
| Finance Agent v2 | – | 50.6% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark | – | 10.4% |
| Legal Research Bench | – | 47.6% |
| MedCode | – | 40.7% |
| MedScribe | – | 85.0% |
| MMMU-Pro (Vals) | – | 88.0% |
| MortgageTax | – | 64.0% |
| MysteryMechanism | – | 23.9% |
| ProgramBench | – | 0.0% |
| Public Benefits Bench | – | 67.1% |
| SAGE | – | 51.3% |
| SkillsBench | – | 42.0% |
| Tax Agent Bench | – | 66.0% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | – | 34.3% |
| Terminal-Bench Science | – | 1.4% |
| Vals Multimodal Index | – | 65.4% |
| Vibe Code Bench 1-100 | – | 12.8% |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | – | 64.7% |
| LMArena Maths | – | 1497 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | – | 1470 |
| LMArena Instruction Following | – | 1474 |
| LMArena Multi-turn | – | 1492 |
| LMArena Longer Queries | – | 1492 |
| Chess Puzzles | 41.0% | – |
| EBR-bench | 39.5% | – |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 52.0% | – |
| PostTrainBench | 41.8% | – |
| DeepSWE v1.1 | 69.7% | – |
| LMCA | 60.3% | – |
| DTBench | 98.4% | – |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4966.6 | – |
| GDP.pdf | 29.8% | – |
| FrontierSWE | 47.0% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | 42.4% | 38.9% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | 84.6% | 88.8% |
| AutomationBench | 54.1% | 56.2% |
| GDP.pdf | 24.0% | 22.8% |
| MLCR | 64.4% | 20.0% |
| EnterpriseOps-Gym | 51.1% | 47.6% |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | 65.3% | 31.9% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | 36.4% | 71.2% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | 1540 | 1617 |
Data as of 2026-10-11. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen3.8 Max: questions
- Is Claude Fable 5 better than Qwen3.8 Max?
- Claude Fable 5 (max) leads on quality: 69.1 vs 64.2. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Fable 5 (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-10-11, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is Claude Fable 5 better than Qwen3.8 Max for coding?
- Claude Fable 5 scores higher in coding (74 vs 65 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Is Claude Fable 5 better than Qwen3.8 Max for agentic tasks?
- Claude Fable 5 scores higher in agentic tasks (65 vs 58 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.8 Max?
- Qwen3.8 Max is cheaper: $3.00 against $20.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.8 Max?
- Claude Fable 5 streams faster: 65 against 37 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Both accept 1M tokens of context.