The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Fable 5.2 vs SWE-2 Flash

Claude Fable 5.2 leads the LLM Stats Score 61.1 to 43.8.

Anthropic · Cognition · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Fable 5.2 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 61.1 to 43.8, 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 61.1 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 3 of 3 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Nov 2026

Choose SWE-2 Flash

  • you are already invested in the Cognition ecosystem

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Fable 5.2
Anthropic
SWE-2 Flash
Cognition
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
61.1
#1
43.8
#59
Reasoning
60.3
#1
42.6
#61
Coding
49.9
#1
33.0
#44
Agents
46.5
#1
30.1
#50
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

1 shared
Index
Claude Fable 5.2
SWE-2 Flash
Tool use
37.3#2
23.0#58
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

29 reported for Claude Fable 5.2 · 7 for SWE-2 Flash

3 shared

Claude Fable 5.2 outperforms in 3 benchmarks (DeepSWE 1.1, FrontierCode 2.0, Terminal-Bench 4.0), while SWE-2 Flash is better at 0 benchmarks.

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

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
Cognition
SWE-2 Flash
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Thu Nov 12 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Claude Fable 5.2 supports multimodal inputs, whereas SWE-2 Flash 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

SWE-2 Flash

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

SWE-2 Flash

Proprietary

Closed source

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Fable 5.2 was released on 2026-11-09, while SWE-2 Flash was released on 2026-11-04.

Claude Fable 5.2 is 0 month newer than SWE-2 Flash.

Claude Fable 5.2

Nov 9, 2026

3 days ago

5d newer
SWE-2 Flash

Nov 4, 2026

1 weeks ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Claude Fable 5.2 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-06-01, while SWE-2 Flash'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 SWE-2 Flash's cutoff date.

Claude Fable 5.2

Jun 2026

SWE-2 Flash

—

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Fable 5.2 and SWE-2 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Fable 5.2
✓ Preferred
SWE-2 Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Fable 5.2 vs SWE-2 Flash.

Which is better, Claude Fable 5.2 or SWE-2 Flash?

Claude Fable 5.2 leads the LLM Stats Score 61.1 to 43.8. Claude Fable 5.2 is made by Anthropic and SWE-2 Flash is made by Cognition. 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 SWE-2 Flash 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%. SWE-2 Flash scores Terminal-Bench 2.1: 89.2%, DeepSWE 1.1: 60.1%, SWE Atlas - Codebase QnA: 50.0%, FrontierCode 1.1: 45.5%, ExploitBench: 34.8%.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Fable 5.2 and SWE-2 Flash?

Claude Fable 5.2 supports 1.0M tokens and SWE-2 Flash 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 SWE-2 Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (61.1 vs 43.8), multimodal support (yes vs no). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Fable 5.2 and SWE-2 Flash?

Claude Fable 5.2 is developed by Anthropic and SWE-2 Flash is developed by Cognition.

Related comparisons