Compare / Claude Fable 5.2 vs Particle-1
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Particle-1
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 78 results on 4 sources that measured both models.
Of the 78 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 10 November 2026 (catalogue release 2026-11-10-8342a7178929).
Claude Fable 5.2 or Particle-1? The short answer
Pick Claude Fable 5.2 if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 90 against 31). Pick Particle-1 if cost matters more: it costs 75 times less per product listing on CatalogBench.
- Spring Prompt overall: Claude Fable 5.2 90, Particle-1 31 (out of 100; how the score works).
- Particle-1 is cheaper to run: $0.001 against $0.088 per product listing on CatalogBench (75 times less).
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Claude Fable 5.2 does better for product listings, decks from an analysis, user surveys and marketing planning.
Head to head
Every fact side by side
| Claude Fable 5.2 | Particle-1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $8.00 in · $40.00 out | $0.050 in · $0.50 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $16.00 | $0.16 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $16.00 (Amazon Bedrock) | – |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.088 | $0.001 |
| Cached input, per million | $0.20 cached input | – |
| Intelligence Index | – | – |
| Spring Prompt overall | 90 | 31 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | – | – |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 9 Nov 2026 | – |
| Weights | Closed | Closed |
| Developer based in | the US | – |
Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.
Which is better for what
Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.
Their slides, side by side
The same brief for both: Manchester store investment review for Hearthside Coffee, an invented company. First slide of each deck from DeckBench.
From our research
Every shared result
Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.
| Measure | Claude Fable 5.2 | Particle-1 |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 29 · 3 of 30 measured | $0.0875 | $0.0012 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 3 · 28 of 29 measured | 71.4% | 0.0% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 7 · 24 of 29 measured | 44.6% | 0.0% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 30 · 2 of 30 measured | $1.40 | $0.0086 |
| Deck ratingrating, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 3 · 17 of 30 measured | 1,419 | 1,143 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 5 · 21 of 30 measured | 83.3% | 16.7% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 1 · 16 of 30 measured | 61.3 | 43.3 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 4 · 14 of 30 measured | 68.5 | 65.1 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 1 · 15 of 30 measured | 72.3 | 39.0 |
| SurveyBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Analysis ratingrating, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other analysis was; the win rate counts wins against whichever analyses a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 1 · 9 of 21 measured | 1,664 | 1,154 |
| Cost per taskUS dollars, lower is better 21 · 2 of 21 measured | $1.51 | $0.0140 |
| Analysis scorepoints of 100, higher is better 1 · 8 of 21 measured | 98.0 | 88.4 |
Show all 78 results (66 more)
| Measure | Claude Fable 5.2 | Particle-1 |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 27 results | ||
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 1 · 1 of 30 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 1 · 17 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 0.6% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 16 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 0.6% |
| Conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better 1 · 1 of 30 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Content quality% of checks, higher is better 2 · 14 of 30 measured | 98.6% | 97.1% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 3 · 21 of 30 measured | 98.6% | 96.1% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 2 · 14 of 30 measured | 98.7% | 96.8% |
| Failed outputs% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Failed outputs · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better 1 · 14 of 30 measured | 98.1% | 93.7% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 19 · 14 of 30 measured | 1.9% | 1.7% |
| Missing UK information% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Missing UK information · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Not findable% of products, lower is better 5 · 1 of 30 measured | 1.8% | 0.0% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 5 · 1 of 30 measured | 1.8% | 0.0% |
| Output tokens per producttokens, lower is better 3 · 4 of 8 measured | 1,442 | 2,180 |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 1 · 29 of 30 measured | 81.0% | 0.0% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 8 · 28 of 30 measured | 66.1% | 0.0% |
| Time per productseconds, lower is better 17 · 22 of 30 measured | 17.5 | 23.5 |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 7 · 18 of 30 measured | 0.23 | 0.71 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 6 · 17 of 30 measured | 6.0% | 19.6% |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 10 · 14 of 30 measured | 23.8% | 49.4% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 8 · 19 of 30 measured | 0.46 | 2.36 |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 1 · 21 of 30 measured | 9.5% | 19.6% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 3 · 16 of 30 measured | 13.1% | 17.9% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 5 · 5 of 30 measured | 1.8% | 1.8% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 6 · 6 of 30 measured | 1.8% | 1.8% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 15 results | ||
| Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 14 · 1 of 30 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 3 · 23 of 30 measured | 83.3% | 16.7% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 8 · 24 of 30 measured | 77.8% | 54.4% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 23 of 30 measured | 16.7% | 50.0% |
| Findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 20 · 1 of 30 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 6 · 18 of 30 measured | 78.0% | 50.0% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 3 · 23 of 30 measured | 16.7% | 83.3% |
| Misleading metric used% of tasks, lower is better 26 · 1 of 30 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Output tokens per decktokens, lower is better 7 · 2 of 9 measured | 33,285 | 16,952 |
| Presentable decks% of tasks, higher is better 1 · 14 of 30 measured | 83.3% | 0.0% |
| Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 17 of 30 measured | 16.7% | 33.3% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 3 · 9 of 30 measured | 16.7% | 33.3% |
| Time per deckseconds, lower is better 24 · 18 of 30 measured | 285 | 154 |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 15 · 1 of 30 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 24 · 1 of 30 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results | ||
| Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 12 · 17 of 30 measured | 31.6 | 27.8 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 1 · 10 of 30 measured | $1,032,894 | $684,624 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 29 · 3 of 30 measured | $1.76 | $0.0234 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 1 · 1 of 30 measured | 0 | 0 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 27 · 26 of 30 measured | 54.2 | 54.3 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 1 · 15 of 30 measured | $0.96 | $0.51 |
| SurveyBench measured by Spring Prompt · 18 results | ||
| Head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other analysis was; the win rate counts wins against whichever analyses a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 1 · 11 of 21 measured | 86.7% | 49.7% |
| Leading or double-barrelled questions% of tasks, lower is better 7 · 3 of 21 measured | 22.2% | 11.1% |
| Mistaken next steps% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 9 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 22.2% |
| Numbers right% of answers, higher is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Objectives unanswerable% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 12 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 11.1% |
| Output tokens per tasktokens, lower is better 6 · 4 of 11 measured | 33,902 | 26,601 |
| Precision ignored% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Research scorepoints of 100, higher is better 1 · 9 of 21 measured | 97.6 | 89.7 |
| Sound research% of tasks, higher is better 3 · 8 of 21 measured | 44.4% | 22.2% |
| Stakeholder's view presumed% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Survey plan scorepoints of 100, higher is better 4 · 9 of 21 measured | 96.9 | 92.6 |
| Survey structure% of tasks, lower is better 3 · 16 of 21 measured | 11.1% | 33.3% |
| Time per taskseconds, lower is better 17 · 16 of 21 measured | 337 | 252 |
| Traps handled% of traps, higher is better 2 · 4 of 21 measured | 98.6% | 95.7% |
| Traps missed% of tasks, lower is better 2 · 5 of 21 measured | 11.1% | 33.3% |
| Unsupported findings% of tasks, lower is better 3 · 10 of 21 measured | 11.1% | 55.6% |
| Wrong numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Wrong recommendation% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 5 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 11.1% |
Compare them with other models
Quick answers
Is Claude Fable 5.2 better than Particle-1?
Pick Claude Fable 5.2 if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 90 against 31). Pick Particle-1 if cost matters more: it costs 75 times less per product listing on CatalogBench.
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.2 or Particle-1?
Particle-1 is cheaper to run: $0.001 against $0.088 per product listing on CatalogBench (75 times less).
Which is better for product listings, Claude Fable 5.2 or Particle-1?
Claude Fable 5.2 ranks 5 of 29 models on sale for turning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live, against 28 for Particle-1.
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Claude Fable 5.2 or Particle-1?
Claude Fable 5.2 ranks 3 of 29 models on sale for turning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is, against 17 for Particle-1.
Which is better for user surveys, Claude Fable 5.2 or Particle-1?
Claude Fable 5.2 ranks 1 of 20 models on sale for planning a user survey and reading its results without being misled, against 9 for Particle-1.
Which is better for marketing planning, Claude Fable 5.2 or Particle-1?
Claude Fable 5.2 ranks 1 of 29 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 16 for Particle-1.
Which is better for speed under pressure, Claude Fable 5.2 or Particle-1?
Claude Fable 5.2 ranks 7 of 32 models on sale for good decisions against a real clock (fast chess), against 33 for Particle-1.
Which has the bigger context window, Claude Fable 5.2 or Particle-1?
Particle-1: 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Claude Fable 5.2.
Run Claude Fable 5.2 and Particle-1 on your own prompt.
Benchmarks aren't your task. Test both side by side on your prompt, with every answer checked against your rules and the cost of each one.