The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Fable 5.2 vs Phi 4 Reasoning

Claude Fable 5.2 leads the LLM Stats Score 61.6 to 11.4.

Anthropic · Microsoft · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Fable 5.2 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 61.6 to 11.4, ranking #1 overall.

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

Choose Claude Fable 5.2

  • overall performance matters — it scores 61.6 and ranks #1 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Nov 2026

Choose Phi 4 Reasoning

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

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Fable 5.2
Anthropic
Phi 4 Reasoning
Microsoft
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
61.6
#1
11.4
#298
Reasoning
60.8
#1
12.0
#284
Coding
51.5
#1
6.3
#226
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
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

1 shared
Index
Claude Fable 5.2
Phi 4 Reasoning
Math
46.8#2
13.6#246
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

29 reported for Claude Fable 5.2 · 11 for Phi 4 Reasoning

No common benchmarks found

Claude Fable 5.2 and Phi 4 Reasoningdon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

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
Microsoft
Phi 4 Reasoning
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 Phi 4 Reasoning 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

Phi 4 Reasoning

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Fable 5.2 is licensed under a proprietary license, while Phi 4 Reasoning uses MIT.

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

Claude Fable 5.2

Proprietary

Closed source

Phi 4 Reasoning

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Fable 5.2 was released on 2026-11-09, while Phi 4 Reasoning was released on 2025-04-30.

Claude Fable 5.2 is 19 months newer than Phi 4 Reasoning.

Claude Fable 5.2

Nov 9, 2026

0 days ago

1.5yr newer
Phi 4 Reasoning

Apr 30, 2025

1.5 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Claude Fable 5.2 has a knowledge cutoff of 2026-06-01, while Phi 4 Reasoning has a cutoff of 2025-03-01.

Claude Fable 5.2 has more recent training data (up to 2026-06-01), making it potentially better informed about events through that date compared to Phi 4 Reasoning (2025-03-01).

Claude Fable 5.2

Jun 2026

1.3 yr newer
Phi 4 Reasoning

Mar 2025

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Fable 5.2 and Phi 4 Reasoning side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Fable 5.2
✓ Preferred
Phi 4 Reasoning
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Fable 5.2 vs Phi 4 Reasoning.

Which is better, Claude Fable 5.2 or Phi 4 Reasoning?

Claude Fable 5.2 leads the LLM Stats Score 61.6 to 11.4. Claude Fable 5.2 is made by Anthropic and Phi 4 Reasoning is made by Microsoft. 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 Phi 4 Reasoning 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%. Phi 4 Reasoning scores FlenQA: 97.7%, HumanEval+: 92.9%, IFEval: 83.4%, OmniMath: 76.6%, AIME 2024: 75.3%.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Fable 5.2 and Phi 4 Reasoning?

Claude Fable 5.2 supports 1.0M tokens and Phi 4 Reasoning 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 Phi 4 Reasoning?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (61.6 vs 11.4), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Fable 5.2 and Phi 4 Reasoning?

Claude Fable 5.2 is developed by Anthropic and Phi 4 Reasoning is developed by Microsoft.

Related comparisons