Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen3.6 27B
Wins 6 of 8 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Images and charts · Math · Long documents
Wins 0 of 8 areas
—
Claude Fable 5 is the stronger all-rounder.Qwen3.6 27B is cheaper.
Scores updated · 32 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the eight areas we test. 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 software80Claude Fable 58 of 8 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking40Claude Fable 54 of 4 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own30Claude Fable 53 of 3 tests
- MathCompetition and research-level math20Claude 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
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked11Even1 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.
Qwen3.6 27B costs 93% 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
- Unpublished advanced math problemsFrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)+51.9points ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+45.8points ahead
- Very hard expert questions across many subjectsHumanity's Last Exam+32.4points ahead
Where Qwen3.6 27B pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+14.3points ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+4.1points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 32 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 28.162.934.8+28.1
- SWE-bench ProClaude Fable 5 by 26.58053.5+26.5
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Claude Fable 5 by 23.984.660.7+23.9
- LiveBench · Agentic CodingClaude Fable 5 by 22.962.239.3+22.9
- SciCodeClaude Fable 5 by 18.26142.8+18.2
- SWE-bench VerifiedClaude Fable 5 by 17.89577.2+17.8
- SWE-bench MultilingualClaude Fable 5 by 15.386.671.3+15.3
- LiveBench · CodingClaude Fable 5 by 14.28671.8+14.2
AgentsClaude Fable 5
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Claude Fable 5 by 42.442.40+42.4
- GDPValClaude Fable 5 by 31.255.624.4+31.2
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingClaude Fable 5 by 21.438.116.7+21.4
ReasoningClaude Fable 5
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Fable 5 by 32.455.523.1+32.4
- CritPtClaude Fable 5 by 27.528.61.1+27.5
- LiveBench · ReasoningClaude Fable 5 by 19.489.770.3+19.4
- GPQA DiamondClaude Fable 5 by 8.492.684.2+8.4
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Fable 5 by 45.865.319.6+45.8
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationQwen3.6 27B by 14.336.450.7+14.3
Images and chartsClaude Fable 5
- MMMU-ProClaude Fable 5 by 9.684.274.6+9.6
MathClaude Fable 5
- FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)Claude Fable 5 by 51.98735.1+51.9
- LiveBench · MathematicsClaude Fable 5 by 16.19679.9+16.1
Following instructionsEven
- LiveBench · Instruction FollowingClaude Fable 5 by 22.675.853.2+22.6
- IFBenchQwen3.6 27B by 4.163.567.6+4.1
Other results9 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 63.343.3-20+63.3
- DeepSWE 1.1Claude Fable 5 by 56.77013.3+56.7
- JobBenchClaude Fable 5 by 35.657.421.8+35.6
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Fable 5 by 30.95120.1+30.9
- AA IntelligenceClaude Fable 5 by 28.249.621.4+28.2
- livebench_languageClaude Fable 5 by 27.490.763.3+27.4
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Fable 5 by 22.876.553.7+22.8
- livebench_data_analysisClaude Fable 5 by 10.180.570.4+10.1
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Claude Fable 5 by 4.398.594.2+4.3
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.6 27B?
Claude Fable 5 wins six of the eight areas we test: coding, agents, reasoning, images and charts, math and long documents. Qwen3.6 27B wins none, but costs 93% less. They are level on facts and following instructions.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Fable 5. It wins 8 of the 8 coding tests both models report; Qwen3.6 27B wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Fable 5 costs $10.00 per million input tokens and $50.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B costs $0.60 and $3.60. That makes Qwen3.6 27B about 93% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 32 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 23 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 9 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.