Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Claude Fable 5.2 vs Grok 4.7

Claude Fable 5.2 leads Grok 4.7 on coding, 87.8 to 64.8 on the Vibe Coding Index, and Grok 4.7 costs 6.7x less per output token ($6.00 vs $40.00 per million). Updated November 14, 2026; 61 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Claude Fable 5.2 Replace Grok 4.7
Claude Fable 5.2Anthropic
Coding
87.8
Overall
91.7
Output $/M
$40.00
58
Grok 4.7xAI
Coding
64.8
Overall
63.4
Output $/M
$6.00
3
vs boards won of 61 shared

Claude Fable 5.2 or Grok 4.7: which to pick

Pick Claude Fable 5.2 for coding: it scores 87.8 on the Vibe Coding Index against 64.8 for Grok 4.7, though on 4 benchmarks against 5.

Pick Grok 4.7 for output tokens 6.7x cheaper ($6.00 vs $40.00 per million) and work measured by Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) or Legal Research Bench (Vals AI), where it leads.

Model AClaude Fable 5.2Anthropic87.8/1004 independent benchmarksNo cost per solved taskModel BGrok 4.7xAI64.8/1005 independent benchmarksNo cost per solved task
Shared results
61
Claude Fable 5.2 only
7
Grok 4.7 only
58
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
Claude Fable 5.2 87.8 from 4 benchmarks, Grok 4.7 64.8 from 5 benchmarks.
Widest category
Math, 49.7 points apart on average over 5 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
FrontierMath, tier 4: Claude Fable 5.2 100.0% against Grok 4.7 17.1%, 82.9 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Claude Fable 5.2 $40.00 against Grok 4.7 $6.00 per million output tokens, 6.7x apart.
Context window
Claude Fable 5.2 takes 1M tokens, Grok 4.7 500K.

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 5.2BarsGrok 4.7Ties
Coding150
Intelligence20
Agentic work93
Reasoning110
Math50
Knowledge30
Web design60
General70
All shared boards583
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index150
Coding benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and Grok 4.7
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2Grok 4.7Leader
LiveBench coding79.2%73.1%Claude Fable 5.2
LMArena WebDev18381641Claude Fable 5.2
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)65.2%28.8%Claude Fable 5.2
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)93.8%86.2%Claude Fable 5.2
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured44.8%Only Grok 4.7 measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)19.0%0.5%Claude Fable 5.2
IOI (Vals AI)Not measured57.7%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured73.4%Only Grok 4.7 measured
SWE-bench Multimodal (Vals AI)62.3%42.9%Claude Fable 5.2
CyberBench (Vals AI)Not measured69.5%Only Grok 4.7 measured
SciCode67.7%57.8%Claude Fable 5.2
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Artificial Analysis run)61.6%25.8%Claude Fable 5.2
FrontierCode 2.049.1%28.7%Claude Fable 5.2
FrontierCodeNot measured47.6%Only Grok 4.7 measured
FrontierSWE69.9%29.5%Claude Fable 5.2
MirrorCodeNot measured54.4%Only Grok 4.7 measured
ALE-Bench2509.81545.8Claude Fable 5.2
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1425Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1421Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena WebDev: React19151662Claude Fable 5.2
LMArena WebDev: HTML17381634Claude Fable 5.2
LMArena WebDev: from an imageNot measured1589Only Grok 4.7 measured
GameBench 299.172.3Claude Fable 5.2
Terminal-Bench 4.0Not measured37.6%Only Grok 4.7 measured
CursorBench 4.060.0%46.3%Claude Fable 5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Intelligence benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and Grok 4.7
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2Grok 4.7Leader
AA Intelligence Index64.635.5Claude Fable 5.2
Epoch Capabilities Index173.4156.2Claude Fable 5.2
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index93
Agentic work benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and Grok 4.7
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2Grok 4.7Leader
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps1402Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps13251244Claude Fable 5.2
Design Arena: spreadsheets14341425Claude Fable 5.2
LiveBench research94.5%89.5%Claude Fable 5.2
LiveBench browser86.9%49.3%Claude Fable 5.2
LiveBench long agentic82.9%45.3%Claude Fable 5.2
SREBench (Vals AI)Not measured3.8%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured52.3%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)32.1%35.8%Grok 4.7
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)46.1%47.1%Grok 4.7
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI)5.0%18.3%Grok 4.7
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured67.0%Only Grok 4.7 measured
BioMysteryBench (Vals AI)83.7%69.3%Claude Fable 5.2
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)55.7%10.0%Claude Fable 5.2
Vals Science Index63.7%34.8%Claude Fable 5.2
Robo-bench (Vals AI)Not measured0.2%Only Grok 4.7 measured
APEX-Agents80.1%54.6%Claude Fable 5.2
Remote Labor Index41.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
SpireClimb15.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$10,537Only Grok 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index110
Reasoning benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and Grok 4.7
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2Grok 4.7Leader
LiveBench reasoning88.8%82.7%Claude Fable 5.2
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)51.8%25.2%Claude Fable 5.2
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)74.3%43.1%Claude Fable 5.2
HLE-Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)80.2%23.6%Claude Fable 5.2
CritPt v2, hard subset (Artificial Analysis run)76.5%43.5%Claude Fable 5.2
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)93.9%92.7%Claude Fable 5.2
ARC-AGI98.5%90.2%Claude Fable 5.2
ARC-AGI-293.8%61.4%Claude Fable 5.2
SimpleBench94.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Chess puzzles79.0%41.0%Claude Fable 5.2
Mystery game puzzles90.0%29.0%Claude Fable 5.2
EBR-bench90.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1416Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1431Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1424Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1257Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1292Only Grok 4.7 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Scale run)72.4%23.4%Claude Fable 5.2
GoBench2566Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Math benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and Grok 4.7
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2Grok 4.7Leader
OTIS Mock AIME99.7%98.1%Claude Fable 5.2
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 395.1%53.0%Claude Fable 5.2
FrontierMath, tier 4100.0%17.1%Claude Fable 5.2
ProofBench100.0%26.0%Claude Fable 5.2
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1416Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1436Only Grok 4.7 measured
MathArena82.8%35.0%Claude Fable 5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
Knowledge benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and Grok 4.7
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2Grok 4.7Leader
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured84.4%Only Grok 4.7 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured49.5%Only Grok 4.7 measured
AA-Omniscience66.831.2Claude Fable 5.2
SimpleQA Verified94.0%56.0%Claude Fable 5.2
GeoBenchNot measured61.0%Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1415Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1394Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1419Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1390Only Grok 4.7 measured
FACTS Benchmark SuiteNot measured62.3%Only Grok 4.7 measured
PRBench Finance47.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
PRBench Legal49.0%47.6%Claude Fable 5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index60
Web design benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and Grok 4.7
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2Grok 4.7Leader
Design Arena: websites13511243Claude Fable 5.2
Design Arena: UI components13711274Claude Fable 5.2
Design Arena: game dev13961306Claude Fable 5.2
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1222Only Grok 4.7 measured
Design Arena: 3D15171251Claude Fable 5.2
Design Arena: all code categories13731265Claude Fable 5.2
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1273Only Grok 4.7 measured
LiveBench design85.1%75.0%Claude Fable 5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index70
General benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and Grok 4.7
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2Grok 4.7Leader
Vals Index71.3%58.6%Claude Fable 5.2
LiveBench data analysis81.5%76.9%Claude Fable 5.2
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)Not measured65.6%Only Grok 4.7 measured
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured88.7%Only Grok 4.7 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured89.4%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)83.3%80.0%Claude Fable 5.2
GDPval-AA18311718Claude Fable 5.2
DTBench99.2%96.0%Claude Fable 5.2
LMCA70.6%49.4%Claude Fable 5.2
Furniture assembly90.0%20.8%Claude Fable 5.2
LMArena TextNot measured1400Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1404Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1384Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena VisionNot measured1230Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1412Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1387Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1446Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1374Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1363Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1364Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1426Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1399Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1398Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1409Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1397Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1416Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1395Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1380Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1233Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1251Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1242Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1203Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1215Only Grok 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 16 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 Grok 4.7
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2Grok 4.7Leader
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
Grok 4.7$0.0050Fits in one request

Grok 4.7 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Claude Fable 5.2$0.520Fits in one request
Grok 4.7$0.118Fits in one request

Grok 4.7 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Claude Fable 5.2$2.00Fits in one request
Grok 4.7$0.460Fits in one request

Grok 4.7 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 Grok 4.7
SpecificationAnthropic Claude Fable 5.2SpaceXAI Grok 4.7
MakerAnthropicxAI
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedNovember 9, 2026September 21, 2026
Context window1M500K
Input $/Mtok$8.00$2.00
Output $/Mtok$40.00$6.00
Coding index87.864.8
Independent measurements behind it45
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Claude Fable 5.2 better than Grok 4.7 for coding?

Pick Claude Fable 5.2 for coding: it scores 87.8 on the Vibe Coding Index against 64.8 for Grok 4.7, though on 4 benchmarks against 5. Pick Grok 4.7 for output tokens 6.7x cheaper ($6.00 vs $40.00 per million) and work measured by Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) or Legal Research Bench (Vals AI), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.2 or Grok 4.7?

Claude Fable 5.2 costs $8.00 per million input tokens and $40.00 per million output tokens; Grok 4.7 costs $2.00 and $6.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Claude Fable 5.2 or Grok 4.7?

Claude Fable 5.2, with 1M tokens against 500K.

How many benchmarks is the Claude Fable 5.2 vs Grok 4.7 comparison based on?

61 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 Grok 4.7's on 5. 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-grok-4-7" title="Claude Fable 5.2 vs Grok 4.7, 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-grok-4-7">LLMBenchmark.ai, Claude Fable 5.2 vs Grok 4.7</a></p>