Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Nova Pro 1.0 vs Claude Fable 5

Claude Fable 5 leads Nova Pro 1.0 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 49.6 to 7.0, and Nova Pro 1.0 costs 15.6x less per output token ($3.20 vs $50.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 37 benchmarks have a result for both.

Nova Pro 1.0Amazon
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$3.20
0
Claude Fable 5Anthropic
Coding
79.3
Overall
79.0
Output $/M
$50.00
37
vs boards won of 37 shared

Nova Pro 1.0 or Claude Fable 5: which to pick

Only Claude Fable 5 has a coding score, 79.3 on the Vibe Coding Index; Nova Pro 1.0 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Nova Pro 1.0 for output tokens 15.6x cheaper ($3.20 vs $50.00 per million).

Shared results
37
Nova Pro 1.0 only
5
Claude Fable 5 only
90
Like-for-like categories
8 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Nova Pro 1.0 not benchmarked, Claude Fable 5 79.3 from 6 benchmarks.
Widest category
Agentic work, 84.5 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: Nova Pro 1.0 14.0% against Claude Fable 5 98.5%, 84.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Nova Pro 1.0 $3.20 against Claude Fable 5 $50.00 per million output tokens, 15.6x apart.
Context window
Nova Pro 1.0 takes 300K tokens, Claude Fable 5 1M.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryNova Pro 1.0BarsClaude Fable 5Ties
Coding03
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning05
Math02
Knowledge04
Web design01
General020
All shared boards037
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index03
Coding benchmarks for Nova Pro 1.0 and Claude Fable 5
BenchmarkNova Pro 1.0Claude Fable 5Leader
LiveBench codingNot measured98.3%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
LMArena WebDevNot measured1624Only Claude Fable 5 measured
AA Coding IndexNot measured76.5Only Claude Fable 5 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured89.8%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured95.0%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)Not measured41.4%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured90.3%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured55.1%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)Not measured2.0%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured80.5%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)23.3%Not measuredOnly Nova Pro 1.0 measured
SciCodeNot measured61.0%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)6.1%62.9%Claude Fable 5
FrontierCodeNot measured53.5%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
FrontierSWENot measured47.0%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
GSO-BenchNot measured78.4%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
WeirdMLNot measured91.9%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
MirrorCodeNot measured63.9%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
ALE-BenchNot measured2041.3Only Claude Fable 5 measured
LMArena Text: coding12701518Claude Fable 5
LMArena Text: software and IT12711513Claude Fable 5
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1631Only Claude Fable 5 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1651Only Claude Fable 5 measured
LMArena WebDev: from an imageNot measured1623Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Nova Pro 1.0 and Claude Fable 5
BenchmarkNova Pro 1.0Claude Fable 5Leader
AA Intelligence Index7.049.6Claude Fable 5
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured163.4Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Nova Pro 1.0 and Claude Fable 5
BenchmarkNova Pro 1.0Claude Fable 5Leader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured50.7Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Design Arena: agents building web appsNot measured1261Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack appsNot measured1280Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile appsNot measured1264Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android appsNot measured1283Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot gamesNot measured1292Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Design Arena: agents building gamesNot measured1285Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Design Arena: HTML slidesNot measured1277Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slidesNot measured1295Only Claude Fable 5 measured
LiveBench researchNot measured86.9%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
LiveBench browserNot measured92.0%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
LiveBench long agenticNot measured53.2%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured56.3%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured38.3%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured49.5%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured73.7%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)Not measured15.7%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom14.0%98.5%Claude Fable 5
APEX-AgentsNot measured63.6%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Remote Labor IndexNot measured16.1%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
PostTrainBenchNot measured41.8%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$5,680Only Claude Fable 5 measured
LMArena SearchNot measured1229Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Reasoning benchmarks for Nova Pro 1.0 and Claude Fable 5
BenchmarkNova Pro 1.0Claude Fable 5Leader
GPQA DiamondNot measured93.2%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
LiveBench reasoningNot measured89.7%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured89.3%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)49.9%92.6%Claude Fable 5
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)3.2%55.5%Claude Fable 5
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured85.9%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
ARC-AGINot measured98.5%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
ARC-AGI-2Not measured89.2%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
SimpleBenchNot measured81.9%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured47.0%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured52.0%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
EBR-benchNot measured39.5%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts12461507Claude Fable 5
LMArena Text: expert12111534Claude Fable 5
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English12591509Claude Fable 5
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1357Only Claude Fable 5 measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1361Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Kagi LLM BenchmarkNot measured91.4%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Math benchmarks for Nova Pro 1.0 and Claude Fable 5
BenchmarkNova Pro 1.0Claude Fable 5Leader
AA Math Index7.0Not measuredOnly Nova Pro 1.0 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)7.0%Not measuredOnly Nova Pro 1.0 measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured100.0%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured87.0%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
FrontierMath, tier 4Not measured90.2%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
ProofBenchNot measured95.0%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
LMArena Text: math12521516Claude Fable 5
LMArena Text: mathematical work12611515Claude Fable 5
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Knowledge benchmarks for Nova Pro 1.0 and Claude Fable 5
BenchmarkNova Pro 1.0Claude Fable 5Leader
MMLU ProNot measured91.5%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured88.6%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured71.8%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured76.9%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured68.9%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured56.1%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)69.1%Not measuredOnly Nova Pro 1.0 measured
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured70.7%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
MMLU82.0%Not measuredOnly Nova Pro 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: science12551506Claude Fable 5
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare12601480Claude Fable 5
LMArena Text: legal and government12811498Claude Fable 5
LMArena Text: business and finance12291480Claude Fable 5
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Web design benchmarks for Nova Pro 1.0 and Claude Fable 5
BenchmarkNova Pro 1.0Claude Fable 5Leader
Design Arena: websites7961296Claude Fable 5
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1319Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1335Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1304Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured1319Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1310Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1302Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured1329Only Claude Fable 5 measured
LiveBench designNot measured84.7%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index020
General benchmarks for Nova Pro 1.0 and Claude Fable 5
BenchmarkNova Pro 1.0Claude Fable 5Leader
LiveBench data analysisNot measured80.5%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)Not measured70.4%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured51.9%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured88.5%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Vals Multimodal IndexNot measured74.2%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
IFBench38.1%63.5%Claude Fable 5
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)21.0%82.3%Claude Fable 5
DTBenchNot measured98.4%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
LMCANot measured61.2%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Surface Evolver BenchNot measured95.0%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Furniture assemblyNot measured35.8%Only Claude Fable 5 measured
LMArena Text12591491Claude Fable 5
LMArena Text: instruction following12351502Claude Fable 5
LMArena Text: creative writing12121494Claude Fable 5
LMArena Vision9801325Claude Fable 5
LMArena Text: English12761498Claude Fable 5
LMArena Text: non-English12331482Claude Fable 5
LMArena Text: Chinese12441543Claude Fable 5
LMArena Text: German12431486Claude Fable 5
LMArena Text: Japanese12001504Claude Fable 5
LMArena Text: Korean12031487Claude Fable 5
LMArena Text: French12711505Claude Fable 5
LMArena Text: Spanish11821498Claude Fable 5
LMArena Text: Russian12401503Claude Fable 5
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1494Only Claude Fable 5 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn12461504Claude Fable 5
LMArena Text: longer queries12551510Claude Fable 5
LMArena Text: writing and language12471501Claude Fable 5
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12101482Claude Fable 5
LMArena Vision: English9871323Claude Fable 5
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1373Only Claude Fable 5 measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1337Only Claude Fable 5 measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1341Only Claude Fable 5 measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1338Only Claude Fable 5 measured
LMArena DocumentNot measured1496Only Claude Fable 5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Nova Pro 1.0 and Claude Fable 5
BenchmarkNova Pro 1.0Claude Fable 5Leader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Nova Pro 1.0$0.0024Fits in one request
Claude Fable 5$0.035Fits in one request

Nova Pro 1.0 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Nova Pro 1.0$0.050Fits in one request
Claude Fable 5$0.650Fits in one request

Nova Pro 1.0 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Nova Pro 1.0$0.192Fits in one request
Claude Fable 5$2.50Fits in one request

Nova Pro 1.0 costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Nova Pro 1.0 and Claude Fable 5
SpecificationAmazon Nova Pro 1.0Anthropic Claude Fable 5
MakerAmazonAnthropic
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedDecember 5, 2024June 9, 2026
Context window300K1M
Input $/Mtok$0.80$10.00
Output $/Mtok$3.20$50.00
Coding indexNot benchmarked79.3
Independent measurements behind it06
Cost per solved taskNot computable$2.16
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Nova Pro 1.0 better than Claude Fable 5 for coding?

Only Claude Fable 5 has a coding score, 79.3 on the Vibe Coding Index; Nova Pro 1.0 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Nova Pro 1.0 for output tokens 15.6x cheaper ($3.20 vs $50.00 per million).

Which is cheaper, Nova Pro 1.0 or Claude Fable 5?

Nova Pro 1.0 costs $0.80 per million input tokens and $3.20 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5 costs $10.00 and $50.00. Cost per solved task is known for Claude Fable 5 only.

Which has the bigger context window, Nova Pro 1.0 or Claude Fable 5?

Claude Fable 5, with 1M tokens against 300K.

How many benchmarks is the Nova Pro 1.0 vs Claude Fable 5 comparison based on?

37 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Nova Pro 1.0's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Claude Fable 5's on 6. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next