Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Claude Fable 5.2 vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Claude Fable 5.2 leads Qwen3.5-Flash on coding, 87.8 to 41.1 on the Vibe Coding Index, and Qwen3.5-Flash costs 153.8x less per output token ($0.26 vs $40.00 per million). Updated November 14, 2026; 13 benchmarks have a result for both.

Claude Fable 5.2Anthropic
Coding
87.8
Overall
91.7
Output $/M
$40.00
13
Qwen3.5-FlashQwen
Coding
41.1
Overall
50.1
Output $/M
$0.26
0
vs boards won of 13 shared

Claude Fable 5.2 or Qwen3.5-Flash: which to pick

Pick Claude Fable 5.2 for coding: it scores 87.8 on the Vibe Coding Index against 41.1 for Qwen3.5-Flash.

Pick Qwen3.5-Flash for output tokens 153.8x cheaper ($0.26 vs $40.00 per million).

Shared results
13
Claude Fable 5.2 only
55
Qwen3.5-Flash only
42
Like-for-like categories
6 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, Qwen3.5-Flash 41.1 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Knowledge, 73.7 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
LMArena WebDev: Claude Fable 5.2 1838 against Qwen3.5-Flash 1243, 85.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Claude Fable 5.2 $40.00 against Qwen3.5-Flash $0.26 per million output tokens, 153.8x apart.
Context window
Both take 1M tokens.

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 5.2BarsQwen3.5-FlashTies
Coding40
Intelligence10
Reasoning30
Math20
Knowledge10
General20
All shared boards130
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index40
Coding benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2Qwen3.5-FlashLeader
LiveBench coding79.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
LMArena WebDev18381243Claude Fable 5.2
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured83.3%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured64.4%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)65.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)93.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
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 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
FrontierSWE69.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
ALE-Bench2509.8265.9Claude Fable 5.2
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1412Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1416Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena WebDev: React19151228Claude Fable 5.2
LMArena WebDev: HTML17381291Claude Fable 5.2
GameBench 299.1Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
CursorBench 4.060.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2Qwen3.5-FlashLeader
AA Intelligence Index64.6Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Epoch Capabilities Index173.4143.8Claude Fable 5.2
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index15 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2Qwen3.5-FlashLeader
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps1402Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1325Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 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
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
Neither model has a result on the other 29 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
Reasoning benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2Qwen3.5-FlashLeader
GPQA DiamondNot measured82.8%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LiveBench reasoning88.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)51.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured81.9%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)74.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
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%82.3%Claude Fable 5.2
ARC-AGI98.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
ARC-AGI-293.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
SimpleBench94.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Chess puzzles79.0%14.0%Claude Fable 5.2
Mystery game puzzles90.0%20.0%Claude Fable 5.2
EBR-bench90.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1404Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1408Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1409Only Qwen3.5-Flash 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 7 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Math benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2Qwen3.5-FlashLeader
AIMENot measured92.5%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
OTIS Mock AIME99.7%84.4%Claude Fable 5.2
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 395.1%18.2%Claude Fable 5.2
FrontierMath, tier 4100.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
ProofBench100.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1407Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1413Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
MathArena82.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Knowledge benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2Qwen3.5-FlashLeader
MMLU ProNot measured84.1%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured84.3%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured56.0%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured63.6%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured72.2%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured67.4%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured33.0%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
AA-Omniscience66.8Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
SimpleQA Verified94.0%20.3%Claude Fable 5.2
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1414Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1408Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1398Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1395Only Qwen3.5-Flash 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 6 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2Qwen3.5-FlashLeader
Design Arena: websites1351Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Design Arena: UI components1371Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Design Arena: game dev1396Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Design Arena: 3D1517Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1373Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
LiveBench design85.1%Not measuredOnly 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
General benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2Qwen3.5-FlashLeader
Vals Index71.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
LiveBench data analysis81.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured84.9%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured70.6%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)83.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
GDPval-AA1831Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
DTBench99.2%82.9%Claude Fable 5.2
LMCA70.6%29.1%Claude Fable 5.2
Furniture assembly90.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
LMArena TextNot measured1397Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1375Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1343Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1404Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1385Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1447Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1390Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1368Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1345Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1413Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1400Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1380Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1377Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1393Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1392Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1369Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1348Only Qwen3.5-Flash 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 Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2Qwen3.5-FlashLeader
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
Qwen3.5-Flash$0.0002Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-Flash costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Claude Fable 5.2$0.520Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-Flash$0.0040Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Claude Fable 5.2$2.00Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-Flash$0.016Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-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.

Specifications of Claude Fable 5.2 and Qwen3.5-Flash
SpecificationAnthropic Claude Fable 5.2Qwen3.5-Flash
MakerAnthropicQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedNovember 9, 2026February 25, 2026
Context window1M1M
Input $/Mtok$8.00$0.065
Output $/Mtok$40.00$0.26
Coding index87.841.1
Independent measurements behind it42
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.40
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Claude Fable 5.2 better than Qwen3.5-Flash for coding?

Pick Claude Fable 5.2 for coding: it scores 87.8 on the Vibe Coding Index against 41.1 for Qwen3.5-Flash. Pick Qwen3.5-Flash for output tokens 153.8x cheaper ($0.26 vs $40.00 per million).

Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.2 or Qwen3.5-Flash?

Claude Fable 5.2 costs $8.00 per million input tokens and $40.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5-Flash costs $0.065 and $0.26. Cost per solved task is known for Qwen3.5-Flash only.

Which has the bigger context window, Claude Fable 5.2 or Qwen3.5-Flash?

Neither: both take 1M tokens.

How many benchmarks is the Claude Fable 5.2 vs Qwen3.5-Flash comparison based on?

13 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 Qwen3.5-Flash's on 2. 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-qwen3-5-flash-02-23" title="Claude Fable 5.2 vs Qwen3.5-Flash, 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-qwen3-5-flash-02-23">LLMBenchmark.ai, Claude Fable 5.2 vs Qwen3.5-Flash</a></p>