The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Fable 5.2 vs LFM3-1.7B

Claude Fable 5.2 leads the LLM Stats Score 61.3 to 24.9.

Anthropic · Liquid AI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Fable 5.2 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 61.3 to 24.9, ranking #1 overall.

In the 3 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Fable 5.2 wins 3; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

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 coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 3 of 3 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Nov 2026

Choose LFM3-1.7B

  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Fable 5.2
Anthropic
LFM3-1.7B
Liquid AI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
61.3
#1
24.9
#196
Reasoning
60.3
#1
20.6
#220
Coding
50.7
#1
7.2
#222
Agents
47.1
#1
17.6
#103
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
3 of 3
0 of 3
Input price
$8.00 / M
— / M
Output price
$40.00 / M
— / M
Context window
1,000,000
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

2 shared
Index
Claude Fable 5.2
LFM3-1.7B
Math
46.8#2
7.5#287
Tool use
37.1#2
14.2#123
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

29 reported for Claude Fable 5.2 · 20 for LFM3-1.7B

3 shared

Claude Fable 5.2 outperforms in 3 benchmarks (AutomationBench, Humanity's Last Exam, SWE-bench Multilingual), while LFM3-1.7B is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.2 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Mon Nov 09 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Claude Fable 5.2 specifies input context (1,000,000 tokens). Only Claude Fable 5.2 specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

Anthropic
Claude Fable 5.2
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Liquid AI
LFM3-1.7B
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Mon Nov 09 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Claude Fable 5.2 supports multimodal inputs, whereas LFM3-1.7B 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

LFM3-1.7B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Fable 5.2 is licensed under a proprietary license, while LFM3-1.7B uses LFM Open License v1.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Claude Fable 5.2

Proprietary

Closed source

LFM3-1.7B

LFM Open License v1.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Fable 5.2 was released on 2026-11-09, while LFM3-1.7B was released on 2026-10-27.

Claude Fable 5.2 is 0 month newer than LFM3-1.7B.

Claude Fable 5.2

Nov 9, 2026

0 days ago

1w newer
LFM3-1.7B

Oct 27, 2026

1 weeks ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Claude Fable 5.2 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-06-01, while LFM3-1.7B'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 LFM3-1.7B's cutoff date.

Claude Fable 5.2

Jun 2026

LFM3-1.7B

—

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Fable 5.2 and LFM3-1.7B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Fable 5.2
✓ Preferred
LFM3-1.7B
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Fable 5.2 vs LFM3-1.7B.

Which is better, Claude Fable 5.2 or LFM3-1.7B?

Claude Fable 5.2 leads the LLM Stats Score 61.3 to 24.9. Claude Fable 5.2 is made by Anthropic and LFM3-1.7B is made by Liquid AI. 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 LFM3-1.7B 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%. LFM3-1.7B scores IFEval: 96.7%, Multi-IF: 89.1%, LiveCodeBench v6: 73.5%, IFBench: 73.0%, BFCL-V4: 71.4%.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Fable 5.2 and LFM3-1.7B?

Claude Fable 5.2 supports 1.0M tokens and LFM3-1.7B supports an unknown number of 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 LFM3-1.7B?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (61.3 vs 24.9), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs LFM Open License v1.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Fable 5.2 and LFM3-1.7B?

Claude Fable 5.2 is developed by Anthropic and LFM3-1.7B is developed by Liquid AI.

Related comparisons