Claude Fable 5.2 vs Ling 3.0 Flash
Claude Fable 5.2 leads Ling 3.0 Flash on coding, 87.8 to 29.6 on the Vibe Coding Index, and Ling 3.0 Flash costs 329.2x less per output token ($0.1215 vs $40.00 per million). Updated November 14, 2026; 9 benchmarks have a result for both.
Claude Fable 5.2 or Ling 3.0 Flash: which to pick
Pick Claude Fable 5.2 for coding: it scores 87.8 on the Vibe Coding Index against 29.6 for Ling 3.0 Flash.
Pick Ling 3.0 Flash for output tokens 329.2x cheaper ($0.1215 vs $40.00 per million).
- Shared results
- 9
- Claude Fable 5.2 only
- 59
- Ling 3.0 Flash only
- 18
- Like-for-like categories
- 4 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
Claude Fable 5.2
Claude Fable 5.2 scores 87.8 against 29.6.
4 and 2 benchmarks behind the scores
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only Claude Fable 5.2 has a AA Intelligence Index result, 64.6.
Directional only
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a AA Agentic Index result, 19.3.
Directional only
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
No call
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a GPQA Diamond result, 84.8%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
No call
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a MMLU Pro result, 82.0%.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only Claude Fable 5.2 has a Design Arena: websites result, 1351.
Directional only
General
Vals Index
No call
Only Claude Fable 5.2 has a Vals Index result, 71.3%.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Claude Fable 5.2
Claude Fable 5.2 takes 1M tokens against 262K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Ling 3.0 Flash
Claude Fable 5.2 $0.028, Ling 3.0 Flash $0.0001 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
No call
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has the number, $0.05.
Directional only
At a glance
- Coding index
- Claude Fable 5.2 87.8 from 4 benchmarks, Ling 3.0 Flash 29.6 from 2 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Coding, 64.8 points apart on average over 4 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI): Claude Fable 5.2 93.8% against Ling 3.0 Flash 2.9%, 90.9 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Claude Fable 5.2 $40.00 against Ling 3.0 Flash $0.1215 per million output tokens, 329.2x apart.
- Context window
- Claude Fable 5.2 takes 1M tokens, Ling 3.0 Flash 262K.
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.
| Category | Claude Fable 5.2 | Bars | Ling 3.0 Flash | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 4 | 0 | ||
| Agentic work | 1 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 2 | 0 | ||
| General | 2 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 9 | 0 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index40
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | Ling 3.0 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench coding | 79.2% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| LMArena WebDev | 1838 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 50.6 | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 84.0% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | Not measured | 65.2% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI) | 65.2% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 93.8% | 2.9% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | Not measured | 0.0% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| ProgramBench (Vals AI) | 19.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | Not measured | 50.2% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| SWE-bench Multimodal (Vals AI) | 62.3% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| SkillsBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 27.9% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| SciCode | 67.7% | 42.0% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Artificial Analysis run) | 61.6% | 0.0% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| FrontierCode 2.0 | 49.1% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| FrontierSWE | 69.9% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| ALE-Bench | 2509.8 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| LMArena WebDev: React | 1915 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1738 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| GameBench 2 | 99.1 | 18.1 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| CursorBench 4.0 | 60.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | Ling 3.0 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 64.6 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 173.4 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | Ling 3.0 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 19.3 | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps | 1402 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building mobile apps | 1325 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: spreadsheets | 1434 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| LiveBench research | 94.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| LiveBench browser | 86.9% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| LiveBench long agentic | 82.9% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | Not measured | 30.3% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | 32.1% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | 46.1% | 0.0% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI) | 5.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | Not measured | 25.0% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| BioMysteryBench (Vals AI) | 83.7% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI) | 55.7% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Vals Science Index | 63.7% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| APEX-Agents | 80.1% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Remote Labor Index | 41.3% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| SpireClimb | 15.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | Ling 3.0 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | Not measured | 84.8% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| LiveBench reasoning | 88.8% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| MysteryMechanism (Vals AI) | 51.8% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 85.5% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 74.3% | 23.7% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| HLE-Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 80.2% | 7.2% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| CritPt v2, hard subset (Artificial Analysis run) | 76.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 93.9% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| ARC-AGI | 98.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 93.8% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| SimpleBench | 94.9% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Chess puzzles | 79.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | 90.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| EBR-bench | 90.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Scale run) | 72.4% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| GoBench | 2566 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | Ling 3.0 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | 99.7% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 95.1% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| FrontierMath, tier 4 | 100.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| ProofBench | 100.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| MathArena | 82.8% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | Ling 3.0 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | Not measured | 82.0% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 79.7% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | Not measured | 61.9% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | Not measured | 70.7% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | Not measured | 32.3% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| AA-Omniscience | 66.8 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| SimpleQA Verified | 94.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| PRBench Finance | 47.1% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| PRBench Legal | 49.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | Ling 3.0 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 1351 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | 1371 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | 1396 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | 1517 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 1373 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| LiveBench design | 85.1% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | Ling 3.0 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vals Index | 71.3% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| LiveBench data analysis | 81.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 50.7% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | Not measured | 80.9% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 83.3% | 73.0% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| GDPval-AA | 1831 | 956 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| DTBench | 99.2% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| LMCA | 70.6% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Furniture assembly | 90.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | Ling 3.0 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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
Ling 3.0 Flash costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Ling 3.0 Flash costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Ling 3.0 Flash 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.
| Specification | Anthropic Claude Fable 5.2 | inclusionAI Ling 3.0 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Anthropic | inclusionAI |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | November 9, 2026 | July 23, 2026 |
| Context window | 1M | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $8.00 | $0.0405 |
| Output $/Mtok | $40.00 | $0.1215 |
| Coding index | 87.8 | 29.6 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 4 | 2 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | $0.05 |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Claude Fable 5.2 better than Ling 3.0 Flash for coding?
Pick Claude Fable 5.2 for coding: it scores 87.8 on the Vibe Coding Index against 29.6 for Ling 3.0 Flash. Pick Ling 3.0 Flash for output tokens 329.2x cheaper ($0.1215 vs $40.00 per million).
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.2 or Ling 3.0 Flash?
Claude Fable 5.2 costs $8.00 per million input tokens and $40.00 per million output tokens; Ling 3.0 Flash costs $0.0405 and $0.1215. Cost per solved task is known for Ling 3.0 Flash only.
Which has the bigger context window, Claude Fable 5.2 or Ling 3.0 Flash?
Claude Fable 5.2, with 1M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks is the Claude Fable 5.2 vs Ling 3.0 Flash comparison based on?
9 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 Ling 3.0 Flash's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.