Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM 5.2

Updated October 21, 2026. 85 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Replace Claude Fable 5.1 Replace GLM 5.2
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic
Coding
89.1
Overall
53.4
Output $/M
$50.00
84
GLM 5.2Z.ai
Coding
57.7
Overall
33.7
Output $/M
$7.00
1
vs boards won of 85 shared

Decision reading

Pick Claude Fable 5.1 for coding: it scores 89.1 on the Vibe Coding Index against 57.7 for GLM 5.2.

Pick GLM 5.2 when output tokens cost 7.1x less, or when the context window is larger, 1.05M against 1M tokens.

Model AClaude Fable 5.1Anthropic89.1/1002 independent benchmarksNo cost per solved taskModel BGLM 5.2Z.ai57.7/1001 independent benchmark$0.86 per solved task
Shared results
85
Claude Fable 5.1 only
39
GLM 5.2 only
12
Like-for-like categories
8 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

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
Claude Fable 5.1 89.1 from 2 benchmarks, GLM 5.2 57.7 from 1 benchmark.
Widest category
Math, 30.8 points apart on average over 6 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
ARC-AGI-2: Claude Fable 5.1 90.0% against GLM 5.2 22.8%, 67.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Claude Fable 5.1 $50.00 against GLM 5.2 $7.00 per million output tokens, 7.1x apart.
Context window
Claude Fable 5.1 takes 1M tokens, GLM 5.2 1.05M.

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
CategoryClaude Fable 5.1BarsGLM 5.2Ties
Coding160
Intelligence20
Agentic work111
Reasoning110
Math60
Knowledge90
Web design80
General210
All shared boards841
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index160
Coding benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.1 and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM 5.2Leader
LiveBench coding97.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
LMArena WebDev17431604Claude Fable 5.1
AA Coding Index81.668.8Claude Fable 5.1
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)90.5%69.5%Claude Fable 5.1
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured82.8%Only GLM 5.2 measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)58.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)90.3%64.0%Claude Fable 5.1
Code migration (Vals AI)54.6%37.9%Claude Fable 5.1
ProgramBench (Vals AI)7.0%0.5%Claude Fable 5.1
IOI (Vals AI)90.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)85.0%67.8%Claude Fable 5.1
SWE-bench Multimodal (Vals AI)61.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
Vibe Code Bench 1-100 (Vals AI)28.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
SkillsBench (Vals AI)61.5%45.1%Claude Fable 5.1
CyberBench (Vals AI)70.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
SciCode63.1%51.2%Claude Fable 5.1
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured50.8%Only GLM 5.2 measured
FrontierCode50.9%24.5%Claude Fable 5.1
FrontierSWE56.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
GSO-Bench88.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
WeirdML92.9%70.1%Claude Fable 5.1
MirrorCode73.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
ALE-Bench2143.21047.0Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: coding15321487Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: software and IT15301486Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena WebDev: React17921617Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena WebDev: HTML16841565Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena WebDev: from an image1722Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Intelligence benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.1 and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM 5.2Leader
AA Intelligence Index53.433.7Claude Fable 5.1
Epoch Capabilities Index166.5151.9Claude Fable 5.1
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index111
Agentic work benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.1 and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM 5.2Leader
AA Agentic Index57.938.4Claude Fable 5.1
Design Arena: agents building web apps13181222Claude Fable 5.1
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps13261241Claude Fable 5.1
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps12671160Claude Fable 5.1
Design Arena: agents building Android appsNot measured1184Only GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot games13271142Claude Fable 5.1
Design Arena: agents building gamesNot measured1206Only GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: HTML slidesNot measured1175Only GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slides13281195Claude Fable 5.1
Design Arena: spreadsheets1374Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
LiveBench research82.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
LiveBench browser100.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
LiveBench long agentic80.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
SREBench (Vals AI)22.9%0.0%Claude Fable 5.1
Finance Agent (Vals AI)58.9%49.7%Claude Fable 5.1
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)49.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)55.3%31.3%Claude Fable 5.1
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)76.7%61.5%Claude Fable 5.1
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)40.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
Time Horizon Index (Vals AI)63.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
CUA-bench (Vals AI)13.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
Robo-bench (Vals AI)5.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured99.1%Only GLM 5.2 measured
APEX-Agents68.6%45.2%Claude Fable 5.1
Remote Labor Index17.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
PostTrainBenchNot measured31.7%Only GLM 5.2 measured
SpireClimb2.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
Vending-Bench 2$5,422$8,314GLM 5.2
LMArena Search1246Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index110
Reasoning benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.1 and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM 5.2Leader
GPQA Diamond93.4%85.6%Claude Fable 5.1
LiveBench reasoning91.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)47.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)90.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)93.7%89.5%Claude Fable 5.1
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)59.1%41.1%Claude Fable 5.1
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured91.9%Only GLM 5.2 measured
ARC-AGI97.5%77.0%Claude Fable 5.1
ARC-AGI-290.0%22.8%Claude Fable 5.1
SimpleBenchNot measured58.8%Only GLM 5.2 measured
Chess puzzles48.0%22.0%Claude Fable 5.1
Mystery game puzzles58.0%19.0%Claude Fable 5.1
EBR-bench57.1%9.5%Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: hard prompts15281481Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: expert15441487Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English15221481Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Vision: diagrams1343Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
LMArena Vision: homework1345Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index60
Math benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.1 and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM 5.2Leader
OTIS Mock AIME100.0%86.4%Claude Fable 5.1
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 390.2%59.2%Claude Fable 5.1
FrontierMath, tier 487.8%29.3%Claude Fable 5.1
ProofBench100.0%35.0%Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: math15311483Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: mathematical work15411489Claude Fable 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index90
Knowledge benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.1 and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM 5.2Leader
MMLU Pro92.4%86.7%Claude Fable 5.1
LegalBench (Vals AI)88.5%84.1%Claude Fable 5.1
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured66.1%Only GLM 5.2 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)76.0%73.3%Claude Fable 5.1
MortgageTax (Vals AI)70.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)53.5%40.8%Claude Fable 5.1
SimpleQA Verified70.8%34.2%Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: science15321489Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare15311475Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: legal and government15141486Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: business and finance14931451Claude Fable 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index80
Web design benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.1 and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM 5.2Leader
Design Arena: websites13131285Claude Fable 5.1
Design Arena: UI components13381296Claude Fable 5.1
Design Arena: game dev13821268Claude Fable 5.1
Design Arena: data viz13441285Claude Fable 5.1
Design Arena: 3D13931288Claude Fable 5.1
Design Arena: all code categories13361288Claude Fable 5.1
Design Arena: SVG13011214Claude Fable 5.1
Design Arena: ASCII art13241190Claude Fable 5.1
LiveBench design83.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index210
General benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.1 and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM 5.2Leader
LiveBench data analysis80.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)74.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
SAGE (Vals AI)48.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)91.3%83.5%Claude Fable 5.1
IFBenchNot measured73.3%Only GLM 5.2 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)85.3%78.3%Claude Fable 5.1
DTBench97.6%93.6%Claude Fable 5.1
LMCA65.5%45.8%Claude Fable 5.1
Surface Evolver BenchNot measured55.6%Only GLM 5.2 measured
Furniture assembly70.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
LMArena Text15121470Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: instruction following15181466Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: creative writing15091463Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Vision1319Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: English15061475Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: non-English15081459Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: Chinese15841522Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: German14991470Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: Japanese15621450Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: Korean15171440Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: French15231479Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: Spanish15201478Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: Russian15201468Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: Polish15251456Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: multi-turn14931469Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: longer queries15241480Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: writing and language15101463Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14971450Claude Fable 5.1
LMArena Vision: English1313Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
LMArena Vision: Chinese1391Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
LMArena Vision: reading text1327Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
LMArena Vision: humor1318Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing1330Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.1 and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM 5.2Leader
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

Claude Fable 5.1$0.035Fits in one request
GLM 5.2$0.0035Fits in one request

GLM 5.2 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Claude Fable 5.1$0.650Fits in one request
GLM 5.2$0.023Fits in one request

GLM 5.2 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Claude Fable 5.1$2.50Fits in one request
GLM 5.2$0.077Fits in one request

GLM 5.2 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 Claude Fable 5.1 and GLM 5.2
SpecificationAnthropic Claude Fable 5.1Z.ai GLM 5.2
MakerAnthropicZ.ai
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 1, 2026June 16, 2026
Context window1M1.05M
Input $/Mtok$10.00$0.0341
Output $/Mtok$50.00$7.00
Coding index89.157.7
Independent measurements behind it21
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.86
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than GLM 5.2 for coding?

Pick Claude Fable 5.1 for coding: it scores 89.1 on the Vibe Coding Index against 57.7 for GLM 5.2. Pick GLM 5.2 when output tokens cost 7.1x less, or when the context window is larger, 1.05M against 1M tokens.

Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM 5.2?

Claude Fable 5.1 costs $10.00 per million input tokens and $50.00 per million output tokens; GLM 5.2 costs $0.0341 and $7.00. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5.2 only.

Which has the bigger context window, Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM 5.2?

GLM 5.2, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

How many benchmarks is the Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM 5.2 comparison based on?

85 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Claude Fable 5.1's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and GLM 5.2's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next