The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Fable 5.2 vs Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking

Claude Fable 5.2 leads the LLM Stats Score 61.3 to 12.3. Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking is 49.2x cheaper per token.

Anthropic · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Fable 5.2 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 61.3 to 12.3, ranking #1 overall.

On price, Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking is roughly 49.2x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Claude Fable 5.2 also accepts a larger context window (1,000,000 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 61.3 and ranks #1 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and agents — it leads those capability indexes
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,000,000 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Nov 2026

Choose Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking

  • cost matters — it's about 49.2x cheaper per token
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Fable 5.2
Anthropic
Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
61.3
#1
12.3
#293
Reasoning
60.3
#1
13.4
#273
Agents
47.1
#1
6.3
#178
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$8.00 / M
$0.10 / M
Output price
$40.00 / M
$1.00 / M
Context window
1,000,000
262,144

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

3 shared
Index
Claude Fable 5.2
Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking
Math
46.8#2
15.4#236
Vision
48.1#1
7.4#170
Multimodal
44.5#1
10.3#140
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

29 reported for Claude Fable 5.2 · 48 for Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking

No common benchmarks found

Claude Fable 5.2 and Qwen3 VL 4B Thinkingdon'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

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking costs less

For input processing, Claude Fable 5.2 ($8.00/1M tokens) is 80.0x more expensive than Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking ($0.10/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Fable 5.2 ($40.00/1M tokens) is 40.0x more expensive than Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking ($1.00/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Fable 5.2 is more expensive than Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Tue Nov 10 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Fable 5.2
Input tokens$8.00
Output tokens$40.00
Best providerAnthropic
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking
Input tokens$0.10
Output tokens$1.00
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Claude Fable 5.2 accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking's 262,144 tokens. Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while Claude Fable 5.2 is limited to 128,000 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Fable 5.2
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 tokens
Tue Nov 10 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both Claude Fable 5.2 and Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Claude Fable 5.2

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Fable 5.2 is licensed under a proprietary license, while Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking uses Apache 2.0.

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

Claude Fable 5.2

Proprietary

Closed source

Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Fable 5.2 was released on 2026-11-09, while Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking was released on 2025-09-22.

Claude Fable 5.2 is 14 months newer than Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking.

Claude Fable 5.2

Nov 9, 2026

0 days ago

1.1yr newer
Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking

Sep 22, 2025

1.1 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Claude Fable 5.2 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-06-01, while Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking'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 Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking's cutoff date.

Claude Fable 5.2

Jun 2026

Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking

—

Provider Availability

Claude Fable 5.2 is available from Anthropic. Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking is available from DeepInfra.

Claude Fable 5.2

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

Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.10/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.00/1M
* 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 Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Fable 5.2
✓ Preferred
Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Fable 5.2 vs Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking.

Which is better, Claude Fable 5.2 or Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking?

Claude Fable 5.2 leads the LLM Stats Score 61.3 to 12.3. Claude Fable 5.2 is made by Anthropic and Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. 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 Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking 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%. Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking scores DocVQAtest: 94.2%, ScreenSpot: 92.9%, MMBench-V1.1: 86.7%, MMLU-Redux: 86.0%, AI2D: 84.9%.

Is Claude Fable 5.2 cheaper than Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking?

Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking is 80.0x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Fable 5.2 costs $8.00/M input and $40.00/M output via anthropic. Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking costs $0.10/M input and $1.00/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Fable 5.2 and Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking?

Claude Fable 5.2 supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking supports 262K 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 Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (61.3 vs 12.3), context window (1.0M vs 262K), input pricing ($8.00 vs $0.10/M), licensing (Proprietary vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Fable 5.2 and Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking?

Claude Fable 5.2 is developed by Anthropic and Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons