Claude Fable 5 vs Ring-flash-2.0
Wins 5 of 5 areas
Coding · Reasoning · Facts · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 0 of 5 areas
—
Claude Fable 5 is the stronger all-rounder.Ring-flash-2.0 is cheaper.
Scores updated · 14 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.
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking30Claude Fable 53 of 3 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software20Claude 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.
Ring-flash-2.0 costs 99% 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
- Reasons across sets of long documentsAA-LCR+61.3points ahead
- Hard command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench Hard+55.3points ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+48.8points ahead
Where Ring-flash-2.0 pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
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 HardClaude Fable 5 by 55.362.97.6+55.3
- SciCodeClaude Fable 5 by 44.26116.8+44.2
ReasoningClaude Fable 5
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Fable 5 by 45.955.59.6+45.9
- CritPtClaude Fable 5 by 28.328.60.3+28.3
- GPQA DiamondClaude Fable 5 by 20.192.672.5+20.1
FactsClaude Fable 5
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Fable 5 by 48.865.316.6+48.8
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude Fable 5 by 26.536.49.9+26.5
Following instructionsClaude Fable 5
- IFBenchClaude Fable 5 by 20.263.543.3+20.2
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 101.943.3-58.6+101.9
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Claude Fable 5 by 98.598.50+98.5
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Fable 5 by 65.976.510.6+65.9
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Fable 5 by 51510+51
- AA IntelligenceClaude Fable 5 by 42.449.67.2+42.4
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Ring-flash-2.0?
Claude Fable 5 wins all five areas where both have results: coding, reasoning, facts, long documents and following instructions. Ring-flash-2.0 wins none, but costs 99% less.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Fable 5. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; Ring-flash-2.0 wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Fable 5 costs $10.00 per million input tokens and $50.00 per million output tokens; Ring-flash-2.0 costs $0.14 and $0.57. That makes Ring-flash-2.0 about 99% 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 9 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.