Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen3.8 27B
Wins 5 of 8 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Images and charts · Math
Wins 0 of 8 areas
—
Claude Fable 5 is the stronger all-rounder.Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper.
Scores updated · 38 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 software60Claude Fable 56 of 7 tests · 1 tie
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking60Claude Fable 56 of 6 tests
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video20Claude Fable 52 of 2 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own21Claude Fable 52 of 4 tests · 1 tie
- MathCompetition and research-level math10Claude Fable 51 of 1 test
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts00Even0 each · 1 tie
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked11Even1 each
Math 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.
Qwen3.8 27B costs 94% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The three tests each model wins by the widest margin. Scores are out of 100.
Where Claude Fable 5 pulls ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+49.8points ahead
- Abstract visual puzzles that people can solveARC-AGI-2+46.8points ahead
- Complex command-line tasks across many fieldsTerminal-Bench 4.0+36.8points ahead
Where Qwen3.8 27B pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+33.3points ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+16points ahead
- Customer-service tasks in a simulated bankτ-Bench V3 · Banking+9.9points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 38 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 18.38061.7+18.3
- SciCodeClaude Fable 5 by 14.46146.6+14.4
- SWE-bench MultilingualClaude Fable 5 by 12.886.673.8+12.8
- LiveBench · CodingClaude Fable 5 by 10.38675.7+10.3
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Claude Fable 5 by 4.884.679.8+4.8
- LMArena · WebDevClaude Fable 5 by 32 rating points16241592+32 rating
- LiveBench · Agentic Codingtie62.261.4tie
AgentsClaude Fable 5
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Claude Fable 5 by 36.842.45.6+36.8
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingQwen3.8 27B by 9.938.148+9.9
- GDPValClaude Fable 5 by 9.455.646.2+9.4
- OSWorld-Verifiedtie8584.3tie
ReasoningClaude Fable 5
- ARC-AGI-2Claude Fable 5 by 46.889.242.4+46.8
- CritPtClaude Fable 5 by 23.228.65.4+23.2
- SimpleBenchClaude Fable 5 by 21.781.960.2+21.7
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Fable 5 by 21.655.533.9+21.6
- LiveBench · ReasoningClaude Fable 5 by 9.789.780+9.7
- GPQA DiamondClaude Fable 5 by 2.192.690.5+2.1
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Fable 5 by 49.865.315.6+49.8
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationQwen3.8 27B by 33.336.469.7+33.3
Images and chartsClaude Fable 5
- MMMU-ProClaude Fable 5 by 7.984.276.3+7.9
- LMArena · VisionClaude Fable 5 by 55 rating points13251270+55 rating
Following instructionsEven
- IFBenchQwen3.8 27B by 1663.579.5+16
- LiveBench · Instruction FollowingClaude Fable 5 by 3.175.872.7+3.1
Other results13 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 53.343.3-10+53.3
- DeepSWE 1.1Claude Fable 5 by 27.87042.2+27.8
- OSWorld 2.0 (partial)Claude Fable 5 by 24.972.948+24.9
- JobBenchClaude Fable 5 by 2457.433.4+24
- Agents' Last ExamQwen3.8 27B by 17.225.742.9+17.2
- livebench_languageClaude Fable 5 by 16.390.774.3+16.3
- AA IntelligenceClaude Fable 5 by 15.949.633.7+15.9
- SWE-bench MultimodalClaude Fable 5 by 15.554.138.6+15.5
- ARC-AGI-1Claude Fable 5 by 1198.587.5+11
- Toolathlon VerifiedClaude Fable 5 by 10.877.967.1+10.8
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Fable 5 by 8.476.568.1+8.4
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Fable 5 by 4.55146.5+4.5
- livebench_data_analysisClaude Fable 5 by 3.980.576.6+3.9
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.8 27B?
Claude Fable 5 wins five of the eight areas we test: coding, agents, reasoning, images and charts and math. Qwen3.8 27B wins none, but costs 94% less. They are level on facts, long documents and following instructions.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Fable 5. It wins 6 of the 7 coding tests both models report; Qwen3.8 27B wins none, and 1 is a tie.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Fable 5 costs $10.00 per million input tokens and $50.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 27B costs $0.50 and $3.00. That makes Qwen3.8 27B about 94% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 38 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 25 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 13 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.