Claude Fable 5 vs Ling-3.0-flash-Fin
Wins 4 of 5 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Long documents
Wins 0 of 5 areas
—
Claude Fable 5 is the stronger all-rounder.Ling-3.0-flash-Fin is cheaper.
Scores updated · 16 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the five 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.
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own30Claude Fable 53 of 4 tests · 1 tie
- CodingWriting and fixing software20Claude Fable 52 of 2 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking20Claude Fable 52 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Fable 51 of 1 test
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 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.
Ling-3.0-flash-Fin 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
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+47.5points ahead
- Very hard expert questions across many subjectsHumanity's Last Exam+32.9points ahead
- Research-level physics problemsCritPt+26points ahead
Where Ling-3.0-flash-Fin pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+24.1points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 16 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 22.184.662.5+22.1
- SciCodeClaude Fable 5 by 18.66142.4+18.6
AgentsClaude Fable 5
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Claude Fable 5 by 42.442.40+42.4
- GDPValClaude Fable 5 by 25.355.630.3+25.3
- AA ApexAgentsClaude Fable 5 by 15.943.327.4+15.9
- τ-Bench V3 · Bankingtie38.138.6tie
ReasoningClaude Fable 5
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Fable 5 by 32.955.522.6+32.9
- CritPtClaude Fable 5 by 2628.62.6+26
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Fable 5 by 47.565.317.9+47.5
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationLing-3.0-flash-Fin by 24.136.460.5+24.1
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 57.943.3-14.6+57.9
- AA IntelligenceClaude Fable 5 by 2749.622.6+27
- τ³-Bench BankingLing-3.0-flash-Fin by 14.226.841+14.2
- SpreadsheetBench 2Claude Fable 5 by 12.934.721.8+12.9
- Finance Agent v2Ling-3.0-flash-Fin by 3.556.359.8+3.5
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Ling-3.0-flash-Fin?
Claude Fable 5 wins four of the five areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning and long documents. Ling-3.0-flash-Fin wins none, but costs 100% 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; Ling-3.0-flash-Fin wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Fable 5 costs $10.00 per million input tokens and $50.00 per million output tokens; Ling-3.0-flash-Fin costs $0.07 and $0.22. That makes Ling-3.0-flash-Fin about 100% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 16 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 11 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.