The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Fable 5.2 vs ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview

Claude Fable 5.2 leads the LLM Stats Score 61.1 to 52.3. ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview is 32.5x cheaper per token.

Anthropic · Baidu · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Fable 5.2 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 61.1 to 52.3, ranking #1 overall.

In the 5 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Fable 5.2 wins 4; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview is roughly 32.5x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Claude Fable 5.2

  • overall performance matters — it scores 61.1 and ranks #1 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 4 of 5 exact shared results

Choose ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview

  • cost matters — it's about 32.5x cheaper per token
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Nov 2026

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Fable 5.2
Anthropic
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview
Baidu
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
61.1
#1
52.3
#13
Reasoning
60.3
#1
50.7
#12
Coding
49.9
#1
37.9
#20
Agents
46.5
#1
38.5
#11
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
4 of 5
1 of 5
Input price
$8.00 / M
$0.28 / M
Output price
$40.00 / M
$1.13 / M
Context window
1,000,000
1,048,576

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Claude Fable 5.2
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview
Tool use
37.3#2
32.2#8
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

29 reported for Claude Fable 5.2 · 13 for ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview

5 shared

Claude Fable 5.2 outperforms in 4 benchmarks (DeepSWE 1.1, OfficeQA Pro, Terminal-Bench 4.0, Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1), while ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview is better at 1 benchmark (AutomationBench).

Claude Fable 5.2 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Thu Nov 12 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview costs less

For input processing, Claude Fable 5.2 ($8.00/1M tokens) is 28.6x more expensive than ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview ($0.28/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Fable 5.2 ($40.00/1M tokens) is 35.4x more expensive than ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview ($1.13/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Fable 5.2 is more expensive than ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Thu Nov 12 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Fable 5.2
Input tokens$8.00
Output tokens$40.00
Best providerAnthropic
Baidu
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview
Input tokens$0.28
Output tokens$1.13
Best providerBaidu
Notice missing or incorrect data?

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Claude Fable 5.2's 1,000,000 tokens. ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview can generate longer responses up to 1,048,576 tokens, while Claude Fable 5.2 is limited to 128,000 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Fable 5.2
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Baidu
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output1,048,576 tokens
Thu Nov 12 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Claude Fable 5.2 supports multimodal inputs, whereas ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview does not.

Claude Fable 5.2 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude Fable 5.2

Text
Images
Audio
Video

ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Both models are licensed under proprietary licenses.

Both models have usage restrictions defined by their respective organizations.

Claude Fable 5.2

Proprietary

Closed source

ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview

Proprietary

Closed source

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Fable 5.2 was released on 2026-11-09, while ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview was released on 2026-11-11.

ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview is 0 month newer than Claude Fable 5.2.

Claude Fable 5.2

Nov 9, 2026

3 days ago

ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview

Nov 11, 2026

1 days ago

2d newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Claude Fable 5.2 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-06-01, while ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Claude Fable 5.2's training data extends to 2026-06-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview's cutoff date.

Claude Fable 5.2

Jun 2026

ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview

—

Provider Availability

Claude Fable 5.2 is available from Anthropic. ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview is available from Baidu Qianfan.

Claude Fable 5.2

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $8.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $40.00/1M

ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview

baidu logo
Baidu
Input Price:Input: $0.28/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.13/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Fable 5.2 and ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Fable 5.2
✓ Preferred
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Fable 5.2 vs ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview.

Which is better, Claude Fable 5.2 or ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview?

Claude Fable 5.2 leads the LLM Stats Score 61.1 to 52.3. Claude Fable 5.2 is made by Anthropic and ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview is made by Baidu. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Claude Fable 5.2 compare to ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview in benchmarks?

Claude Fable 5.2 scores SWE-bench Multilingual: 96.6%, Global-MMLU: 96.0%, MILU: 94.1%, SWE-Bench Pro: 93.0%, Chartography: 91.6%. ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview scores BrowseComp: 87.4%, DRACO: 84.9%, MCP Atlas: 84.6%, DeepSWE 1.1: 71.2%, OfficeQA Pro: 67.9%.

Is Claude Fable 5.2 cheaper than ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview?

ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview is 28.6x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Fable 5.2 costs $8.00/M input and $40.00/M output via anthropic. ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview costs $0.28/M input and $1.13/M output via baidu.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Fable 5.2 and ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview?

Claude Fable 5.2 supports 1.0M tokens and ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview supports 1.0M tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude Fable 5.2 and ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (61.1 vs 52.3), context window (1.0M vs 1.0M), input pricing ($8.00 vs $0.28/M), multimodal support (yes vs no). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Fable 5.2 and ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview?

Claude Fable 5.2 is developed by Anthropic and ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview is developed by Baidu.

Related comparisons