Claude Fable 5 vs Ling-3.0-flash-VL
Wins 5 of 6 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Images and charts · Long documents
Wins 0 of 6 areas
—
Claude Fable 5 is the stronger all-rounder.Ling-3.0-flash-VL is cheaper.
Scores updated · 14 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.
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own30Claude Fable 53 of 3 tests
- 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 video10Claude Fable 51 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Fable 51 of 1 test
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
Images and charts and long documents 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-3.0-flash-VL 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+51points ahead
- Very hard expert questions across many subjectsHumanity's Last Exam+33.5points ahead
- Research-level physics problemsCritPt+26.6points ahead
Where Ling-3.0-flash-VL pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+41.6points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 14 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 20.284.664.4+20.2
- SciCodeClaude Fable 5 by 16.86144.2+16.8
AgentsClaude Fable 5
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Claude Fable 5 by 42.442.40+42.4
- GDPValClaude Fable 5 by 22.455.633.2+22.4
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingClaude Fable 5 by 3.738.134.4+3.7
ReasoningClaude Fable 5
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Fable 5 by 33.555.522+33.5
- CritPtClaude Fable 5 by 26.628.62+26.6
- GPQA DiamondClaude Fable 5 by 6.492.686.2+6.4
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Fable 5 by 5165.314.3+51
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationLing-3.0-flash-VL by 41.636.478+41.6
Images and chartsClaude Fable 5
- MMMU-ProClaude Fable 5 by 5.284.279+5.2
Other results2 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 47.843.3-4.5+47.8
- AA IntelligenceClaude Fable 5 by 2549.624.6+25
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Ling-3.0-flash-VL?
Claude Fable 5 wins five of the six areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, images and charts and long documents. Ling-3.0-flash-VL 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-VL 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-VL costs $0.07 and $0.22. That makes Ling-3.0-flash-VL about 100% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 14 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 2 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.