Compare / head-to-head
Claude Fable 5vs
GPT-5.2-Codex
Claude Fable 5 leads 10 of 10 shared benchmarks. GPT-5.2-Codex is 3.8x cheaper per token. Claude Fable 5 has the larger context window (1M tokens).
Benchmarks from cited public sources; pricing from official pages; status from official provider feeds.
Shared benchmarks
10 – 0
Claude Fable 5 leads
Cheaper per token
GPT-5.2-Codex
3.8x cheaper, input + output
Larger context
Claude Fable 5
1M tokens
Providers
2 providers
Anthropic · OpenAI
Claude Fable 5
Anthropic · released 2026-06-09
textvision
GPT-5.2-Codex
OpenAI · released 2025-12-18
textvision
Quality
Benchmark matrix
10 shared · 34 only Claude Fable 5 · 3 only GPT-5.2-Codex| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | GPT-5.2-Codex | Δ | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reported by both · 10 | ||||
| LiveBench Agentic Coding (LiveBench) | 62.2% ↗ | 49.4% ↗ | +12.8 pt | Claude Fable 5 |
| LiveBench Coding (LiveBench) | 86% ↗ | 83.6% ↗ | +2.4 pt | Claude Fable 5 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis (LiveBench) | 80.5% ↗ | 78.2% ↗ | +2.3 pt | Claude Fable 5 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following (LiveBench) | 75.8% ↗ | 66.4% ↗ | +9.4 pt | Claude Fable 5 |
| LiveBench Language (LiveBench) | 90.7% ↗ | 73.7% ↗ | +17 pt | Claude Fable 5 |
| LiveBench Mathematics (LiveBench) | 96% ↗ | 88.8% ↗ | +7.2 pt | Claude Fable 5 |
| LiveBench Reasoning (LiveBench) | 89.7% ↗ | 77.7% ↗ | +12 pt | Claude Fable 5 |
| LMArena WebDev (LMArena) | 1625.3 ↗ | 1338.9 ↗ | +286.4 | Claude Fable 5 |
| OSWorld-Verified | 85% ↗ | 38.2% ↗ | +46.8 pt | Claude Fable 5 |
| SWE-Bench Pro | 80% ↗ | 56.4% ↗ | +23.6 pt | Claude Fable 5 |
| Only Claude Fable 5 reports · 34 | ||||
| SWE-bench Verified | 95% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| GPQA Diamond | 85.9% ↗epoch run | not reported | — | — |
| LMArena Elo | 1504.3 ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| APEX-Agents (Mercor) | 63.6% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| AutomationBench | 17.4% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 38.6% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| Chess Puzzles (Epoch AI run) | 41% ↗epoch run | not reported | — | — |
| CursorBench | 72.9% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| DeepSWE v1.1 (Datacurve) | 69.9% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| EBR-bench (Epoch AI run) | 39.5% ↗epoch run | not reported | — | — |
| FrontierCode (Diamond) | 29.3% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 v2 (Epoch AI run) | 90.2% ↗epoch run | not reported | — | — |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 v2 (Epoch AI run) | 87% ↗epoch run | not reported | — | — |
| FrontierSWE V2 (Proximal Labs) | 47% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| Furniture Assembly (Epoch AI run) | 35.8% ↗epoch run | not reported | — | — |
| GDP.pdf | 29.8% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| GSO Opt@1 (GSO) | 76.5% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| Legal Agent Benchmark (Harvey's Held-Out Set) | 13.3% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| LMArena Agent (LMArena) | 0.0821 ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| LMArena Vision (LMArena) | 1308.8 ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| MirrorCode (Epoch AI run) | 63.9% ↗epoch run | not reported | — | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles (Epoch AI run) | 52% ↗epoch run | not reported | — | — |
| OfficeQA Pro | 57.9% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| OSWorld-Verified (XLANG) | 86% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 (Epoch AI run) | 100% ↗epoch run | not reported | — | — |
| SAGE (Vals AI) | 51.9% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| SimpleBench (SimpleBench) | 81.9% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.7% ↗epoch run | not reported | — | — |
| SWE-rebench 2026-05-15 to 2026-07-01 (Nebius) | 64.5% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| tau2-bench Banking Knowledge (Sierra) | 39.7% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 | 84.3% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals AI) | 41.4% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 (Andon Labs) | 5680.26 ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| WeirdML (Håvard Tveit Ihle) | 91.9% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| Only GPT-5.2-Codex reports · 3 | ||||
| Cybersecurity Capture The Flag Challenges | not reported | 67.4% ↗ | — | — |
| SWE-Lancer IC Diamond | not reported | 76% ↗ | — | — |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | not reported | 64% ↗ | — | — |
Scores tagged "epoch" or "matharena" are independent runs, used only where the lab has not published its own; ⚠ marks rows MathArena flags as released after the competition. Higher is better on every row. Δ is Claude Fable 5 minus GPT-5.2-Codex in the benchmark's own unit. "Not reported" means the lab has not published that figure; it is not a zero. ↗ opens the source.
Specs & pricing
Side by side
Official pricing pages and model cards| Spec | Claude Fable 5 | GPT-5.2-Codex | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Context window | 1M tokens | 400K tokens | Claude Fable 5 |
| Max output | 128K tokens | 128K tokens | Tie |
| Input price / 1M | $10 ↗ | $1.75 ↗ | GPT-5.2-Codex |
| Output price / 1M | $50 ↗ | $14 ↗ | GPT-5.2-Codex |
| Cached input / 1M | $1 ↗ | $0.175 ↗ | GPT-5.2-Codex |
| Input + output / 1M Lower is cheaper. List prices; batch, tool and regional fees excluded. | $60 | $15.75 | GPT-5.2-Codex |
| Modalities | text · vision | text · vision | Tie |
| Released | 2026-06-09 | 2025-12-18 | — |
| Cited benchmark scores | 44 | 13 | — |
Reliability
Provider status
Live from /statusMore matchups
Claude Fable 5 vs …
Models sharing the most benchmarksMore matchups
GPT-5.2-Codex vs …
Models sharing the most benchmarksBuilt by Respan
Which one wins on your data?
Public benchmarks are a starting point. Run Claude Fable 5 and GPT-5.2-Codex on your own prompts with Respan evals, or route to either through one gateway key with automatic failover.