Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Claude Fable 5.2 vs GLM 5

Claude Fable 5.2 leads GLM 5 on coding, 87.8 to 41.6 on the Vibe Coding Index, and GLM 5 costs 12.5x less per output token ($3.20 vs $40.00 per million). Updated November 14, 2026; 21 benchmarks have a result for both.

Claude Fable 5.2Anthropic
Coding
87.8
Overall
91.7
Output $/M
$40.00
21
GLM 5Z.ai
Coding
41.6
Overall
57.9
Output $/M
$3.20
0
vs boards won of 21 shared

Claude Fable 5.2 or GLM 5: which to pick

Pick Claude Fable 5.2 for coding: it scores 87.8 on the Vibe Coding Index against 41.6 for GLM 5.

Pick GLM 5 for output tokens 12.5x cheaper ($3.20 vs $40.00 per million).

Shared results
21
Claude Fable 5.2 only
47
GLM 5 only
59
Like-for-like categories
7 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
Claude Fable 5.2 87.8 from 4 benchmarks, GLM 5 41.6 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Coding, 48.1 points apart on average over 5 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
ARC-AGI-2: Claude Fable 5.2 93.8% against GLM 5 4.9%, 88.9 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Claude Fable 5.2 $40.00 against GLM 5 $3.20 per million output tokens, 12.5x apart.
Context window
Claude Fable 5.2 takes 1M tokens, GLM 5 205K.

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 5.2BarsGLM 5Ties
Coding50
Intelligence10
Agentic work20
Reasoning50
Math20
Web design50
General10
All shared boards210
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index50
Coding benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and GLM 5
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2GLM 5Leader
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured72.8%Only GLM 5 measured
SWE-bench MultilingualNot measured69.7%Only GLM 5 measured
LiveBench coding79.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
LMArena WebDev18381435Claude Fable 5.2
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured81.9%Only GLM 5 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured71.4%Only GLM 5 measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)65.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)93.8%23.4%Claude Fable 5.2
ProgramBench (Vals AI)19.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
SWE-bench Multimodal (Vals AI)62.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
SciCode67.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured43.2%Only GLM 5 measured
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Artificial Analysis run)61.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
FrontierCode 2.049.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Terminal-BenchNot measured52.4%Only GLM 5 measured
FrontierSWE69.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
WeirdMLNot measured48.2%Only GLM 5 measured
ALE-Bench2509.8765.6Claude Fable 5.2
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1462Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1460Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena WebDev: React19151423Claude Fable 5.2
LMArena WebDev: HTML17381449Claude Fable 5.2
SWE Atlas: Codebase QnANot measured20.5%Only GLM 5 measured
SWE Atlas: RefactoringNot measured24.2%Only GLM 5 measured
SWE Atlas: Test WritingNot measured28.7%Only GLM 5 measured
GameBench 299.1Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.0Not measured52.4%Only GLM 5 measured
CursorBench 4.060.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and GLM 5
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2GLM 5Leader
AA Intelligence Index64.6Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Epoch Capabilities Index173.4146.5Claude Fable 5.2
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Agentic work benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and GLM 5
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2GLM 5Leader
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps14021097Claude Fable 5.2
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps13251128Claude Fable 5.2
Design Arena: agents building Android appsNot measured1136Only GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot gamesNot measured1144Only GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: HTML slidesNot measured1043Only GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: spreadsheets1434Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
LiveBench research94.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
LiveBench browser86.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
LiveBench long agentic82.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)32.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)46.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI)5.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
BioMysteryBench (Vals AI)83.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)55.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Vals Science Index63.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured98.2%Only GLM 5 measured
APEX-Agents80.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Remote Labor Index41.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
SpireClimb15.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$4,432Only GLM 5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Reasoning benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and GLM 5
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2GLM 5Leader
GPQA DiamondNot measured83.3%Only GLM 5 measured
LiveBench reasoning88.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)51.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured82.0%Only GLM 5 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)74.3%29.3%Claude Fable 5.2
HLE-Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)80.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
CritPt v2, hard subset (Artificial Analysis run)76.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)93.9%87.8%Claude Fable 5.2
ARC-AGI98.5%44.7%Claude Fable 5.2
ARC-AGI-293.8%4.9%Claude Fable 5.2
SimpleBench94.9%53.2%Claude Fable 5.2
Chess puzzles79.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Mystery game puzzles90.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
EBR-bench90.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1452Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1455Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1460Only GLM 5 measured
Kagi LLM BenchmarkNot measured75.0%Only GLM 5 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Scale run)72.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
GoBench2566Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Math benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and GLM 5
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2GLM 5Leader
AIMENot measured91.7%Only GLM 5 measured
OTIS Mock AIME99.7%80.0%Claude Fable 5.2
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 395.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
FrontierMath, tier 4100.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
ProofBench100.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1439Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1450Only GLM 5 measured
MathArena82.8%19.0%Claude Fable 5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index14 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and GLM 5
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2GLM 5Leader
MMLU ProNot measured86.0%Only GLM 5 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured84.1%Only GLM 5 measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured52.5%Only GLM 5 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured62.9%Only GLM 5 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured70.0%Only GLM 5 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured94.3%Only GLM 5 measured
AA-Omniscience66.8Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
SimpleQA Verified94.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1460Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1454Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1454Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1431Only GLM 5 measured
PRBench Finance47.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
PRBench Legal49.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Web design benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and GLM 5
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2GLM 5Leader
Design Arena: websites13511239Claude Fable 5.2
Design Arena: UI components13711221Claude Fable 5.2
Design Arena: game dev13961223Claude Fable 5.2
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1225Only GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: 3D15171208Claude Fable 5.2
Design Arena: all code categories13731236Claude Fable 5.2
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1157Only GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured1142Only GLM 5 measured
LiveBench design85.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
General benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and GLM 5
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2GLM 5Leader
Vals Index71.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
LiveBench data analysis81.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
IFBenchNot measured72.3%Only GLM 5 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)83.3%75.7%Claude Fable 5.2
GDPval-AA1831Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
DTBench99.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
LMCA70.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
CL-benchNot measured18.7%Only GLM 5 measured
Furniture assembly90.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
LMArena TextNot measured1446Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1428Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1437Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1457Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1431Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1512Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1447Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1414Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1419Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1457Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1454Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1437Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1433Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1456Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1446Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1436Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1426Only GLM 5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and GLM 5
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2GLM 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

Claude Fable 5.2$0.028Fits in one request
GLM 5$0.0026Fits in one request

GLM 5 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Claude Fable 5.2$0.520Fits in one request
GLM 5$0.060Fits in one request

GLM 5 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Claude Fable 5.2$2.00Fits in one request
GLM 5$0.232Exceeds the context window

GLM 5 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 5.2 and GLM 5
SpecificationAnthropic Claude Fable 5.2Z.ai GLM 5
MakerAnthropicZ.ai
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedNovember 9, 2026February 11, 2026
Context window1M205K
Input $/Mtok$8.00$1.00
Output $/Mtok$40.00$3.20
Coding index87.841.6
Independent measurements behind it43
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.63
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Claude Fable 5.2 better than GLM 5 for coding?

Pick Claude Fable 5.2 for coding: it scores 87.8 on the Vibe Coding Index against 41.6 for GLM 5. Pick GLM 5 for output tokens 12.5x cheaper ($3.20 vs $40.00 per million).

Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.2 or GLM 5?

Claude Fable 5.2 costs $8.00 per million input tokens and $40.00 per million output tokens; GLM 5 costs $1.00 and $3.20. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5 only.

Which has the bigger context window, Claude Fable 5.2 or GLM 5?

Claude Fable 5.2, with 1M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the Claude Fable 5.2 vs GLM 5 comparison based on?

21 benchmarks have a result for both models as of November 14, 2026. Claude Fable 5.2's coding index rests on 4 independent benchmarks and GLM 5's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next

Embed this comparison on your site

Free under CC BY 4.0, while the source link stays visible. Preview the frame · Terms and other embeds

<iframe src="https://llmbenchmark.ai/embed/compare/claude-fable-5-2-vs-glm-5" title="Claude Fable 5.2 vs GLM 5, LLMBenchmark.ai" width="100%" height="360" style="border:0;max-width:100%" loading="lazy"></iframe>
<p style="font:13px/1.4 sans-serif;margin:6px 0 0">Source: <a href="https://llmbenchmark.ai/compare/claude-fable-5-2-vs-glm-5">LLMBenchmark.ai, Claude Fable 5.2 vs GLM 5</a></p>