Claude Fable 5 vs GLM-4.6V
Wins 6 of 7 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Images and charts · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 0 of 7 areas
—
Claude Fable 5 is the stronger all-rounder.GLM-4.6V is cheaper.
Scores updated · 17 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the seven areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking30Claude Fable 53 of 3 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software20Claude Fable 52 of 2 tests
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video20Claude Fable 52 of 2 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own10Claude Fable 51 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Fable 51 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10Claude Fable 51 of 1 test
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
Agents, long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
GLM-4.6V costs 98% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Claude Fable 5 pulls ahead
- Real work tasks from 44 professionsGDPVal+50.1points ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+49.2points ahead
- Hard command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench Hard+48.5points ahead
Where GLM-4.6V pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+12.1points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 17 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingClaude Fable 5
- Terminal-Bench HardClaude Fable 5 by 48.562.914.4+48.5
- SciCodeClaude Fable 5 by 30.66130.4+30.6
ReasoningClaude Fable 5
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Fable 5 by 45.955.59.6+45.9
- CritPtClaude Fable 5 by 28.628.60+28.6
- GPQA DiamondClaude Fable 5 by 20.792.671.9+20.7
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Fable 5 by 49.265.316.2+49.2
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationGLM-4.6V by 12.136.448.5+12.1
Images and chartsClaude Fable 5
- MMMU-ProClaude Fable 5 by 35.684.248.6+35.6
- LMArena · VisionClaude Fable 5 by 162 rating points13251163+162 rating
Following instructionsClaude Fable 5
- IFBenchClaude Fable 5 by 33.463.530.1+33.4
Other results5 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- AA-OmniscienceClaude Fable 5 by 70.243.3-26.9+70.2
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Claude Fable 5 by 66.998.531.6+66.9
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Fable 5 by 56.876.519.7+56.8
- AA IntelligenceClaude Fable 5 by 38.449.611.2+38.4
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Fable 5 by 33.55117.5+33.5
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or GLM-4.6V?
Claude Fable 5 wins six of the seven areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, images and charts, long documents and following instructions. GLM-4.6V wins none, but costs 98% less. They are level on facts.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Fable 5. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; GLM-4.6V wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Fable 5 costs $10.00 per million input tokens and $50.00 per million output tokens; GLM-4.6V costs $0.30 and $0.90. That makes GLM-4.6V about 98% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 17 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 12 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 5 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.