Claude Fable 5 vs Ling 2.6 Flash
Wins 6 of 6 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 0 of 6 areas
—
Claude Fable 5 is the stronger all-rounder.Ling 2.6 Flash is cheaper.
Scores updated · 17 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the six 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 software30Claude Fable 53 of 3 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking30Claude Fable 53 of 3 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own20Claude Fable 52 of 2 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up20Claude Fable 52 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Fable 51 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10Claude Fable 51 of 1 test
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.
Ling 2.6 Flash costs 100% 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
- Command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench 2.1+60.3points ahead
- Reasons across sets of long documentsAA-LCR+51points ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+49.8points ahead
Where Ling 2.6 Flash pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
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 2.1Claude Fable 5 by 60.384.624.3+60.3
- Terminal-Bench HardClaude Fable 5 by 41.762.921.2+41.7
- SciCodeClaude Fable 5 by 33.96127.1+33.9
AgentsClaude Fable 5
- GDPValClaude Fable 5 by 55.655.60+55.6
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingClaude Fable 5 by 35.238.12.9+35.2
ReasoningClaude Fable 5
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Fable 5 by 49.255.56.3+49.2
- GPQA DiamondClaude Fable 5 by 33.392.659.3+33.3
- CritPtClaude Fable 5 by 28.628.60+28.6
FactsClaude Fable 5
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Fable 5 by 49.865.315.6+49.8
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude Fable 5 by 33.136.43.3+33.1
Following instructionsClaude Fable 5
- IFBenchClaude Fable 5 by 6.163.557.4+6.1
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 109.443.3-66.1+109.4
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Fable 5 by 51.276.525.3+51.2
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Fable 5 by 48.7512.3+48.7
- AA IntelligenceClaude Fable 5 by 39.949.69.7+39.9
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Claude Fable 5 by 12.598.586+12.5
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Ling 2.6 Flash?
Claude Fable 5 wins all six areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, long documents and following instructions. Ling 2.6 Flash wins none, but costs 100% less.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Fable 5. It wins 3 of the 3 coding tests both models report; Ling 2.6 Flash wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Fable 5 costs $10.00 per million input tokens and $50.00 per million output tokens; Ling 2.6 Flash costs $0.01 and $0.03. That makes Ling 2.6 Flash about 100% 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.