Claude Fable 5 vs GLM-5.2
Wins 6 of 7 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Math · Long documents
Wins 0 of 7 areas
—
Claude Fable 5 is the stronger all-rounder.GLM-5.2 is cheaper.
Scores updated · 55 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.
- CodingWriting and fixing software70Claude Fable 57 of 7 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking60Claude Fable 56 of 6 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own50Claude Fable 55 of 5 tests
- MathCompetition and research-level math30Claude Fable 53 of 3 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up21Claude Fable 52 of 3 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Fable 51 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked11Even1 each
Long documents rests on a single test.
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-5.2 costs 90% 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
- Abstract visual puzzles that people can solveARC-AGI-2+66.4points ahead
- Extremely hard research-level math problemsFrontierMath Tier 4+60.9points ahead
- Complex command-line tasks across many fieldsTerminal-Bench 4.0+41.4points ahead
Where GLM-5.2 pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+37.3points ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+9.8points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 55 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingClaude Fable 5
- SWE-bench ProClaude Fable 5 by 17.98062.1+17.9
- Terminal-Bench HardClaude Fable 5 by 12.162.950.8+12.1
- LiveBench · Agentic CodingClaude Fable 5 by 10.462.251.8+10.4
- SciCodeClaude Fable 5 by 9.86151.2+9.8
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Claude Fable 5 by 6.784.677.9+6.7
- LiveBench · CodingClaude Fable 5 by 6.38679.7+6.3
- LMArena · WebDevClaude Fable 5 by 21 rating points16241603+21 rating
AgentsClaude Fable 5
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Claude Fable 5 by 41.442.41+41.4
- GDPValClaude Fable 5 by 11.955.643.7+11.9
- AA ApexAgentsClaude Fable 5 by 9.643.333.7+9.6
- MCP AtlasClaude Fable 5 by 7.984.776.8+7.9
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingClaude Fable 5 by 3.538.134.6+3.5
ReasoningClaude Fable 5
- ARC-AGI-2Claude Fable 5 by 66.489.222.8+66.4
- SimpleBenchClaude Fable 5 by 23.181.958.8+23.1
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Fable 5 by 14.455.541.1+14.4
- LiveBench · ReasoningClaude Fable 5 by 11.189.778.6+11.1
- CritPtClaude Fable 5 by 7.728.620.9+7.7
- GPQA DiamondClaude Fable 5 by 3.192.689.5+3.1
FactsClaude Fable 5
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Fable 5 by 41.165.324.3+41.1
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationGLM-5.2 by 37.336.473.7+37.3
- SimpleQA VerifiedClaude Fable 5 by 36.570.734.2+36.5
MathClaude Fable 5
- FrontierMath Tier 4Claude Fable 5 by 60.990.229.3+60.9
- FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)Claude Fable 5 by 27.88759.2+27.8
- LiveBench · MathematicsClaude Fable 5 by 6.29689.8+6.2
Following instructionsEven
- LiveBench · Instruction FollowingClaude Fable 5 by 13.575.862.3+13.5
- IFBenchGLM-5.2 by 9.863.573.3+9.8
Other results28 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 38.943.34.4+38.9
- DeepSWE 1.1Claude Fable 5 by 267044+26
- DeepSWEClaude Fable 5 by 23.87046.2+23.8
- Program BenchClaude Fable 5 by 22.686.363.7+22.6
- SWE-MarathonClaude Fable 5 by 223513+22
- ARC-AGI-1Claude Fable 5 by 21.598.577+21.5
- GDPval-AA v2Claude Fable 5 by 215 rating points17231508+215 rating
- GDPval-AA v2 EloClaude Fable 5 by 213 rating points17231510+213 rating
- Toolathlon VerifiedClaude Fable 5 by 1877.959.9+18
- SWEBench Pro PublicClaude Fable 5 by 17.98062.1+17.9
- OfficeQA ProClaude Fable 5 by 16.557.941.4+16.5
- AA IntelligenceClaude Fable 5 by 15.949.633.7+15.9
- livebench_languageClaude Fable 5 by 14.590.776.2+14.5
- JobBenchClaude Fable 5 by 1457.443.4+14
- ToolathlonClaude Fable 5 by 13.561.748.2+13.5
- HiL-Bench (Tools-allowed)Claude Fable 5 by 12.656.343.7+12.6
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Fable 5 by 11.65139.4+11.6
- MLS Bench Litelower is betterGLM-5.2 by 9.549.940.4+9.5
- HLE (with tools)Claude Fable 5 by 9.163.854.7+9.1
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Fable 5 by 7.776.568.8+7.7
- PostTrainBenchClaude Fable 5 by 7.141.434.3+7.1
- livebench_data_analysisClaude Fable 5 by 6.880.573.7+6.8
- SpreadsheetBench 2Claude Fable 5 by 6.634.728.1+6.6
- Global-MMLU-LiteClaude Fable 5 by 4.193.389.2+4.1
- Agents' Last ExamClaude Fable 5 by 1.925.723.8+1.9
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)tie98.599.1tie
- StrongREJECTtie98.798.5tie
- τ³-Bench Bankingtie26.826.8tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or GLM-5.2?
Claude Fable 5 wins six of the seven areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, math and long documents. GLM-5.2 wins none, but costs 90% less. They are level on following instructions.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Fable 5. It wins 7 of the 7 coding tests both models report; GLM-5.2 wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Fable 5 costs $10.00 per million input tokens and $50.00 per million output tokens; GLM-5.2 costs $1.40 and $4.40. That makes GLM-5.2 about 90% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 55 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 27 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 28 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.