The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Fable 5 vs LFM3-1.7B

Claude Fable 5 leads the LLM Stats Score 52.8 to 25.0.

Anthropic · Liquid AI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Fable 5 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 52.8 to 25.0, ranking #11 overall.

In the 4 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Fable 5 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

  • overall performance matters — it scores 52.8 and ranks #11 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 3 of 4 exact shared results

Choose LFM3-1.7B

  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2026
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Fable 5
Anthropic
LFM3-1.7B
Liquid AI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
52.8
#11
25.0
#191
Reasoning
50.4
#11
20.8
#216
Coding
43.8
#7
7.4
#218
Agents
38.7
#12
18.1
#97
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
3 of 4
1 of 4
Input price
$10.00 / M
— / M
Output price
$50.00 / M
— / M
Context window
1,000,000
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

2 shared
Index
Claude Fable 5
LFM3-1.7B
Math
42.0#8
7.6#285
Tool use
23.7#49
14.3#118
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

20 reported for Claude Fable 5 · 20 for LFM3-1.7B

4 shared

Claude Fable 5 outperforms in 3 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam, SWE-Bench Verified, Terminal-Bench 2.1), while LFM3-1.7B is better at 1 benchmark (AutomationBench).

Claude Fable 5 shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.

Fri Nov 06 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 specifies input context (1,000,000 tokens). Only Claude Fable 5 specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

Anthropic
Claude Fable 5
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Liquid AI
LFM3-1.7B
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Fri Nov 06 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Claude Fable 5 supports multimodal inputs, whereas LFM3-1.7B does not.

Claude Fable 5 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude Fable 5

Text
Images
Audio
Video

LFM3-1.7B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Fable 5 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

Proprietary

Closed source

LFM3-1.7B

LFM Open License v1.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Fable 5 was released on 2026-06-09, while LFM3-1.7B was released on 2026-10-27.

LFM3-1.7B is 5 months newer than Claude Fable 5.

Claude Fable 5

Jun 9, 2026

5 months ago

LFM3-1.7B

Oct 27, 2026

1 weeks ago

4mo newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Fable 5 and LFM3-1.7B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Fable 5
✓ Preferred
LFM3-1.7B
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Fable 5 vs LFM3-1.7B.

Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or LFM3-1.7B?

Claude Fable 5 leads the LLM Stats Score 52.8 to 25.0. Claude Fable 5 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 compare to LFM3-1.7B in benchmarks?

Claude Fable 5 scores SWE-Bench Verified: 95.0%, FrontierSWE: 90.0%, OSWorld-Verified: 85.0%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 84.3%, SWE-Bench Pro: 80.0%. 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 and LFM3-1.7B?

Claude Fable 5 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 and LFM3-1.7B?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (52.8 vs 25.0), 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 and LFM3-1.7B?

Claude Fable 5 is developed by Anthropic and LFM3-1.7B is developed by Liquid AI.

Related comparisons