Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5
Claude Fable 5.2 leads the LLM Stats Score 61.3 to 57.2. Claude Sonnet 5.5 is 4.0x cheaper per token.
Anthropic · Anthropic · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Claude Fable 5.2 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 61.3 to 57.2, ranking #1 overall.
In the 26 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Fable 5.2 wins 19; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Claude Sonnet 5.5 is roughly 4.0x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Claude Fable 5.2
- overall performance matters — it scores 61.3 and ranks #1 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning and agents — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 19 of 26 exact shared results
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Nov 2026
Choose Claude Sonnet 5.5
- cost matters — it's about 4.0x cheaper per token
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
29 reported for Claude Fable 5.2 · 47 for Claude Sonnet 5.5
Claude Fable 5.2 outperforms in 19 benchmarks (AutomationBench, Chartography, Chartography (no tools), CursorBench 4.0, DeepSWE 1.1, FrontierSWE V2, Global-MMLU, Humanity's Last Exam (with tools), MILU, OfficeQA, OfficeQA Pro, OSWorld 2.1 (partial), OSWorld 2.1 (strict), PhysicianBench, Program Bench, SWE-bench Multilingual, SWE-Bench Multimodal, SWE-Bench Pro, Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1), while Claude Sonnet 5.5 is better at 7 benchmarks (AA-Briefcase v1.1, GDPval-AA 2.1, HealthBench, HealthBench Professional, HealthBench Professional (raw), HealthBench (raw), Terminal-Bench 4.0).
Claude Fable 5.2 shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Claude Fable 5.2 ($8.00/1M tokens) is 4.0x more expensive than Claude Sonnet 5.5 ($2.00/1M tokens).
For output processing, Claude Fable 5.2 ($40.00/1M tokens) is 4.0x more expensive than Claude Sonnet 5.5 ($10.00/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Claude Fable 5.2 is more expensive than Claude Sonnet 5.5.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Both models have the same input context window of 1,000,000 tokens. Both models can generate responses up to 128,000 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Both Claude Fable 5.2 and Claude Sonnet 5.5 support multimodal inputs.
They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.
Claude Fable 5.2
Claude Sonnet 5.5
License
Usage and distribution terms
Both models are licensed under proprietary licenses.
Both models have usage restrictions defined by their respective organizations.
Proprietary
Closed source
Proprietary
Closed source
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Claude Fable 5.2 was released on 2026-11-09, while Claude Sonnet 5.5 was released on 2026-09-28.
Claude Fable 5.2 is 1 month newer than Claude Sonnet 5.5.
Nov 9, 2026
0 days ago
1mo newerSep 28, 2026
1 months ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Both models have the same knowledge cutoff date of 2026-06-01.
They should have similar awareness of historical events and information up to this date.
Jun 2026
Jun 2026
Provider Availability
Claude Fable 5.2 is available from Anthropic. Claude Sonnet 5.5 is available from Anthropic.
Claude Fable 5.2
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Claude Fable 5.2 and Claude Sonnet 5.5 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5.