Fable 5
Proprietary CommercialDeveloped by Fable Studio · Released 2025-01-01
What are the token costs and operational benchmarks for Fable 5?
Architectural Overview
Frontier foundation model developed by Fable Studio featuring Generative Simulation & World Agent Engine architecture.
Optimal Production Use Cases
Long-horizon multi-agent world simulations, narrative engine synthesis, interactive character memory, and creative reasoning.
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model your expected production workload across prompt (input) and completion (output) tokens.
Estimated Monthly Spend
$2/1M in · $8/1M out
$0.18/1M in · $0.72/1M out
Head-to-Head Comparisons Involving Fable 5
Fable 5 vs Claude 3.5 Haiku
Claude 3.5 Haiku is 60.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.80 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $4.00 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (2.5x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.5 Haiku delivers faster response latency with 140ms TTFT (100ms faster than Fable 5). Fable 5 leads coding benchmarks at 58.0% SWE-bench vs. 40.6% for Claude 3.5 Haiku.
Fable 5 vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Fable 5 is 33.3% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $8.00 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (1.5x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Fable 5 delivers faster response latency with 240ms TTFT (80ms faster than Claude 3.5 Sonnet). Claude 3.5 Sonnet leads coding benchmarks at 63.7% SWE-bench vs. 58.0% for Fable 5.
Fable 5 vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet
Fable 5 is 33.3% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $8.00 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (1.5x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Fable 5 delivers faster response latency with 240ms TTFT (410ms faster than Claude 3.7 Sonnet). Claude 3.7 Sonnet leads coding benchmarks at 70.3% SWE-bench vs. 58.0% for Fable 5.
Fable 5 vs Claude Opus 5
Fable 5 is 60.0% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $8.00 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (2.5x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Fable 5 delivers faster response latency with 240ms TTFT (100ms faster than Claude Opus 5). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 58.0% for Fable 5.
Fable 5 vs Codestral 25.01
Codestral 25.01 is 85.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.90 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (6.7x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Codestral 25.01 delivers faster response latency with 150ms TTFT (90ms faster than Fable 5). Fable 5 leads coding benchmarks at 58.0% SWE-bench vs. 44.2% for Codestral 25.01.
Fable 5 vs Composer 2.5
Composer 2.5 is 10.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.80 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $7.20 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (1.1x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Composer 2.5 delivers faster response latency with 180ms TTFT (60ms faster than Fable 5). Composer 2.5 leads coding benchmarks at 74.6% SWE-bench vs. 58.0% for Fable 5.
Fable 5 vs DeepSeek-R1
DeepSeek-R1 is 72.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.55 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $2.19 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (3.6x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Fable 5 delivers faster response latency with 240ms TTFT (1560ms faster than DeepSeek-R1). Fable 5 leads coding benchmarks at 58.0% SWE-bench vs. 49.2% for DeepSeek-R1.
Fable 5 vs DeepSeek-V3
DeepSeek-V3 is 93.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.14 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.28 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (14.3x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Fable 5 delivers faster response latency with 240ms TTFT (100ms faster than DeepSeek-V3). Fable 5 leads coding benchmarks at 58.0% SWE-bench vs. 42.0% for DeepSeek-V3.
Fable 5 vs DeepSeek-V4 Flash
DeepSeek-V4 Flash is 93.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.14 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.56 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (14.3x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek-V4 Flash delivers faster response latency with 150ms TTFT (90ms faster than Fable 5). DeepSeek-V4 Flash leads coding benchmarks at 62.4% SWE-bench vs. 58.0% for Fable 5.
Fable 5 vs Gemini 2.0 Flash
Gemini 2.0 Flash is 95.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.10 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (20.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Fable 5 delivers faster response latency with 240ms TTFT (140ms faster than Gemini 2.0 Flash). Fable 5 leads coding benchmarks at 58.0% SWE-bench vs. 48.0% for Gemini 2.0 Flash.
Fable 5 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash is 96.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.08 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.32 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (25.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.7 Flash delivers faster response latency with 75ms TTFT (165ms faster than Fable 5). Gemini 3.7 Flash leads coding benchmarks at 68.2% SWE-bench vs. 58.0% for Fable 5.
Fable 5 vs GLM 5.3 Flash
GLM 5.3 Flash is 92.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.50 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (13.3x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GLM 5.3 Flash delivers faster response latency with 130ms TTFT (110ms faster than Fable 5). Fable 5 leads coding benchmarks at 58.0% SWE-bench vs. 54.2% for GLM 5.3 Flash.
Fable 5 vs OpenAI GPT-4o
Fable 5 is 20.0% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $8.00 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (1.2x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Fable 5 delivers faster response latency with 240ms TTFT (40ms faster than OpenAI GPT-4o). Fable 5 leads coding benchmarks at 58.0% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
Fable 5 vs GPT-5.6 Luna
GPT-5.6 Luna is 91.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.18 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.72 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (11.1x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GPT-5.6 Luna delivers faster response latency with 90ms TTFT (150ms faster than Fable 5). Fable 5 leads coding benchmarks at 58.0% SWE-bench vs. 48.5% for GPT-5.6 Luna.
Fable 5 vs GPT-5.6 Sol
Fable 5 is 75.0% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $8.00 per 1M tokens) and $8.00 vs. $32.00 for output tokens (4.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Fable 5 delivers faster response latency with 240ms TTFT (180ms faster than GPT-5.6 Sol). GPT-5.6 Sol leads coding benchmarks at 79.5% SWE-bench vs. 58.0% for Fable 5.
Fable 5 vs GPT-5.6 Terra
GPT-5.6 Terra is 25.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.50 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $6.00 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (1.3x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GPT-5.6 Terra delivers faster response latency with 210ms TTFT (30ms faster than Fable 5). GPT-5.6 Terra leads coding benchmarks at 65.4% SWE-bench vs. 58.0% for Fable 5.
Fable 5 vs Grok 3
Fable 5 is 33.3% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $8.00 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (1.5x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Fable 5 delivers faster response latency with 240ms TTFT (610ms faster than Grok 3). Grok 3 leads coding benchmarks at 58.5% SWE-bench vs. 58.0% for Fable 5.
Fable 5 vs xAI Grok 4.6
Both models share identical input pricing at $2.00 per 1M tokens. In terms of operational performance, Fable 5 delivers faster response latency with 240ms TTFT (40ms faster than xAI Grok 4.6). xAI Grok 4.6 leads coding benchmarks at 76.8% SWE-bench vs. 58.0% for Fable 5.
Fable 5 vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 91.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.18 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (11.1x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Fable 5 delivers faster response latency with 240ms TTFT (180ms faster than Llama 3.3 70B Instruct). Fable 5 leads coding benchmarks at 58.0% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct.
Fable 5 vs Mistral Large 2
Both models share identical input pricing at $2.00 per 1M tokens. In terms of operational performance, Fable 5 delivers faster response latency with 240ms TTFT (310ms faster than Mistral Large 2). Fable 5 leads coding benchmarks at 58.0% SWE-bench vs. 39.0% for Mistral Large 2.
Fable 5 vs OpenAI o1
Fable 5 is 86.7% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $8.00 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (7.5x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Fable 5 delivers faster response latency with 240ms TTFT (610ms faster than OpenAI o1). Fable 5 leads coding benchmarks at 58.0% SWE-bench vs. 48.9% for OpenAI o1.
Fable 5 vs o3-mini
o3-mini is 45.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (1.8x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Fable 5 delivers faster response latency with 240ms TTFT (960ms faster than o3-mini). Fable 5 leads coding benchmarks at 58.0% SWE-bench vs. 49.3% for o3-mini.
Fable 5 vs Microsoft Phi-4 (14B)
Microsoft Phi-4 (14B) is 94.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.36 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (16.7x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Microsoft Phi-4 (14B) delivers faster response latency with 110ms TTFT (130ms faster than Fable 5). Fable 5 leads coding benchmarks at 58.0% SWE-bench vs. 42.1% for Microsoft Phi-4 (14B).
Fable 5 vs Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct
Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct is 82.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.35 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (5.7x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Fable 5 delivers faster response latency with 240ms TTFT (180ms faster than Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct). Fable 5 leads coding benchmarks at 58.0% SWE-bench vs. 44.0% for Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct.
Fable 5 vs Qwen 2.5 Max
Qwen 2.5 Max is 86.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.28 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.84 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (7.1x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Fable 5 delivers faster response latency with 240ms TTFT (240ms faster than Qwen 2.5 Max). Fable 5 leads coding benchmarks at 58.0% SWE-bench vs. 44.2% for Qwen 2.5 Max.
Fable 5 vs Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 94.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.48 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (16.7x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster response latency with 120ms TTFT (120ms faster than Fable 5). Fable 5 leads coding benchmarks at 58.0% SWE-bench vs. 56.8% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next.
Frequently Asked Questions & Query Fan-Out
How much does Fable 5 cost per 1M tokens?
Fable 5 costs $2.00 per million prompt (input) tokens and $8.00 per million completion (output) tokens.
What is the context window for Fable 5?
Fable 5 supports a maximum context window of 512,000 tokens, with a maximum single-generation output of 32,768 tokens.
What are the primary use cases for Fable 5?
Long-horizon multi-agent world simulations, narrative engine synthesis, interactive character memory, and creative reasoning.