Models / Claude Fable 5.2
Anthropic
Claude Fable 5.2
Claude Fable 5.2 is best for user surveys and marketing planning; pick it when quality matters more than cost.
Results 10 Nov 2026 · 95 results · 5 sources
- Price per million tokens
- $8.00 in · $40.00 out
Anthropic's list price, 10 Nov 2026 · compare prices$0.20 cached input · 50% off in batch - Speed
- Not measured
- Intelligence Index
- Not measured
- Spring Prompt overall
- 1st of 32 score 90 of 100 · how it works
- Spring Prompt Score
- 90 of 100 1st of 28 · 5 of 5 benchmarks · our own tests only
- Developer
- Anthropic, based in the US
Weights not published - Released
- 9 Nov 2026
1,000,000 tokens of context
Where it stands among the models you could choose
Available models grouped by price, intelligence, speed and developer location. Retired models are excluded.
| Among | Intelligence Index | Spring Prompt overall | Price, blended | Speed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Models available today | – | 1st of 31leads | $16.00 blended, 97th percentilecheapest: Mistral Nemo | – |
| Models priced $10 or more per million tokens | – | 1st of 3leads | sets this group | – |
| Models from developers based in the US | – | 1st of 18leads | $16.00 blended, 94th percentilecheapest: Gemma 3 4B | – |
The name under each rank is the leader of that group; green is the top quarter of the group and red the bottom quarter, by rank. Price is shown as a percentile: the share of the group that costs less, so lower is cheaper. "Sets this group" marks the measure the group is defined by. Spring Prompt overall is our score out of 100 across every source (how it works). Price is the developer's list price (or the typical OpenRouter host where we haven't read one) for three input tokens to one output; intelligence and speed are from Artificial Analysis (data sourced from Artificial Analysis); "similar intelligence" means within 4 points on its Intelligence Index. Developer locations are where each company is based, not where a model is served. Groups under 3 models are not ranked.
Measured cost per task
API cost recorded in our benchmark runs, excluding judging.
| Task | Benchmark | Cost per task |
|---|---|---|
| Product listing | CatalogBench | ≈ $0.088 |
| Deck | DeckBench | ≈ $1.40 |
| Survey plan and analysis | SurveyBench | ≈ $1.51 |
| Game of blitz chess | BulletBench | ≈ $0.524 |
Cheapest model that passes
On our benchmarks that define a pass for each task: what one passing answer cost in our run, failed attempts included, and whether a cheaper model passed.
- CatalogBench · cost per 1,000 accepted listings
Claude Fable 5.2: $108 (136 of 168 attempts), 23 of 24. Cheapest: GPT-6 Luna at $0.70 (114 of 168 attempts). Every cheaper model passed less often. - DeckBench · cost per presentable deck
Claude Fable 5.2 passed 5 of 6 tasks, with no estimate: failed-call costs incomplete. Cheapest: GPT-6.1 Terra at $0.13 (3 of 6 tasks). - SurveyBench · cost per sound survey task
Claude Fable 5.2: $3.40 (4 of 9 tasks), 8 of 8. Cheapest: Particle-1 at $0.06 (2 of 9 tasks). Cheaper and passed at least as often: GPT-6.1 Sol at $0.21 (6 of 9 tasks).
Cost per attempt divided by the share that passed, at the run date's prices, excluding judging. Each model at its cheapest setting per passing answer. With a handful of tasks, a pass or two either way is within chance. No estimate where a run had missing outputs, because their cost may not have been recorded.
How good is it, and for what?
Each use case ranks the available models its benchmarks measured, then those priced $10 or more per million tokens. The bar shows its percentile in that field, best to the right. Open a row for the results behind it.
Product listingsTurning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | Rank among available | Best available |
|---|---|---|---|
| CatalogBenchCatalogBench: reliably publish-ready | 71.4% | 3rd of 28 | GPT-6 Astra 75.0% |
| CatalogBenchCatalogBench (sales brief): reliably publish-ready | 44.6% | 7th of 28 | GPT-6 Astra 69.6% |
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | Rank among available | Best available |
|---|---|---|---|
| DeckBenchDeckBench: deck rating | 1,425 | 3rd of 28 | GPT-6 Astra 1,593 |
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | Rank among available | Best available |
|---|---|---|---|
| SurveyBenchSurveyBench: analysis rating | 1,683 | 1st of 17 | This model |
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | Rank among available | Best available |
|---|---|---|---|
| ROASBenchROASBench: overall score | 61.3 | 1st of 28 | This model |
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls
- tau2-bench: pending. Its latest results are dated 26 May 2026, before this model was released.
- Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4: pending. Its latest results are dated 16 Dec 2025, before this model was released.
- OpenHands Index: pending. Its latest results are dated 30 Jun 2026, before this model was released.
- Microsoft STATE-Bench: pending. Its latest results are dated 29 May 2026, before this model was released.
- Artificial Analysis: has not measured this model.
- Vending-Bench 2: pending. Its latest results are dated 1 Oct 2026, before this model was released.
Professional workReal tasks from banking, consulting and law, business documents and freelance projects
- APEX-Agents: pending. Its latest results are dated 1 Oct 2026, before this model was released.
- GDP.pdf: pending. Its latest results are dated 1 Oct 2026, before this model was released.
- Remote Labor Index: pending. Its latest results are dated 1 Oct 2026, before this model was released.
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge
- Artificial Analysis: pending. Its latest results are dated 20 Oct 2026, before this model was released.
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality
- Arena (formerly LMArena): pending. Its latest results are dated 2 Oct 2026, before this model was released.
- UGI Leaderboard: pending. Its latest results are dated 2 Oct 2026, before this model was released.
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers
- Vectara Hallucination Leaderboard: pending. Its latest results are dated 22 Sep 2026, before this model was released.
- Arena (formerly LMArena): pending. Its latest results are dated 2 Oct 2026, before this model was released.
- SimpleQA Verified (Epoch AI): pending. Its latest results are dated 29 Sep 2026, before this model was released.
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | Rank among available | Best available |
|---|---|---|---|
| BulletBenchBulletBench Bullet 60s: ladder Elo | 491 | 10th of 29 | Gemini 3.8 Flash 1,068 |
Nearest alternatives
- The most capable open-weights modelMiMo-V2.6-Pro$0.54 blended · Intelligence Index 46.3
Against Claude Fable 5.2 at $16.00 blended. "Similar intelligence" means within 4 points or better.
Where to run it
4 hosts on OpenRouter at the standard service tier, with a median of $16.00 blended per million tokens. Cheapest first.
| Host | Quantisation | Input | Output | Blended |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amazon Bedrock | not stated | $8.00 | $40.00 | $16.00 |
| Anthropic | not stated | $8.00 | $40.00 | $16.00 |
| Azure | not stated | $8.00 | $40.00 | $16.00 |
| not stated | $8.00 | $40.00 | $16.00 |
Other service tiers, not counted above: Anthropic fast $16.00 in, $80.00 out. Flex and batch are cheaper but slower or queued; priority and fast cost more.
Prices per million tokens from OpenRouter's public endpoint list, checked 10 Nov 2026.
Against the alternatives
The models you would most likely weigh it against: the leaders of the groups above.
Scroll sideways to see every alternative.
| Claude Fable 5.2 | Claude Opus 5.5 just below overall | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $16.00 | $8.00 |
| Tokens a second | – | 96 |
| Intelligence Index | – | 57.6 |
| Spring Prompt overall | 90 | 82 |
| Rank among available models, by use case | ||
| Product listings | 5th of 28 | 11th |
| Decks from an analysis | 3rd of 28 | 5th |
| User surveys | 1st of 17 | 3rd |
| Marketing planning | 1st of 28 | 8th |
| Agents and tool use | pending | 3rd |
| Professional work | pending | 3rd |
| Reasoning and knowledge | pending | 1st |
| Writing | pending | 5th |
| Sticking to the facts | pending | 3rd |
| Speed under pressure | 7th of 31 | – |
| Side by side → | ||
Shaded figures are better than Claude Fable 5.2's. A dash means no result.
Research and examples
In the playground: our pick in 3 of 29 tests, 99% of checks passed →
Where it has been measured
Highest-scoring overall of the 18 models from developers based in the US, and highest-scoring overall of the 3 models priced $10 or more per million tokens. Among models available today, in the top quarter (by percentile) for 4 of the 5 use cases measured, led by user surveys and marketing planning. Results for agents and tool use, professional work, reasoning and knowledge, writing, and sticking to the facts are pending: those sources last updated before this model was released.
Not timed: Artificial Analysis, our source for speed, has not tested it
- BulletBench15 results
- CatalogBench32 results
- DeckBench18 results
- ROASBench9 results
- SurveyBench21 results
- APEX-AgentsPending: latest results 1 Oct 2026
- Arena (formerly LMArena)Pending: latest results 2 Oct 2026
- Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4Pending: latest results 16 Dec 2025
- GDP.pdfPending: latest results 1 Oct 2026
- Microsoft STATE-BenchPending: latest results 1 Jul 2026
- OpenHands IndexPending: latest results 30 Jun 2026
- Remote Labor IndexPending: latest results 1 Oct 2026
- SimpleQA Verified (Epoch AI)Pending: latest results 29 Sep 2026
- tau2-benchPending: latest results 3 Aug 2026
- UGI LeaderboardPending: latest results 2 Oct 2026
- Vectara Hallucination LeaderboardPending: latest results 22 Sep 2026
- Vending-Bench 2Pending: latest results 1 Oct 2026
- Artificial AnalysisNot measured
Every result
95 published results from 5 sources, each in the source's own units, with the configuration that produced it.
BulletBench · measured by Spring Prompt · 15 results
| Measure | Value | Rank | Configuration | Dated |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BulletBench Blitz 3+2: cost per gameUS dollars, lower is better | $0.52 | 17 of 18 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| BulletBench Blitz 3+2: games lost on time% of games, lower is better | 50.0% | 14 of 18 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| BulletBench Blitz 3+2: invalid moves% of moves, lower is better | 0.0% | 1 of 18 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| BulletBench Blitz 3+2: ladder Eloladder Elo, higher is better | 1,100 789–1,450 |
3 of 18 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| BulletBench Blitz 3+2: median move timemilliseconds, lower is better | 4.9 s | 10 of 18 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| BulletBench Bullet 60s: cost per gameUS dollars, lower is better | $0.0948 | 43 of 46 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| BulletBench Bullet 60s: cost per gameUS dollars, lower is better | $0.0800 | 41 of 46 | Claude Fable 5.2 (low reasoning) low reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| BulletBench Bullet 60s: games lost on time% of games, lower is better | 62.5% | 30 of 46 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| BulletBench Bullet 60s: games lost on time% of games, lower is better | 62.5% | 30 of 46 | Claude Fable 5.2 (low reasoning) low reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| BulletBench Bullet 60s: invalid moves% of moves, lower is better | 0.0% | 1 of 46 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| BulletBench Bullet 60s: invalid moves% of moves, lower is better | 0.0% | 1 of 46 | Claude Fable 5.2 (low reasoning) low reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| BulletBench Bullet 60s: ladder Eloladder Elo, higher is better | 491 187–738 |
17 of 46 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| BulletBench Bullet 60s: ladder Eloladder Elo, higher is better | 491 230–714 |
17 of 46 | Claude Fable 5.2 (low reasoning) low reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| BulletBench Bullet 60s: median move timemilliseconds, lower is better | 3.4 s | 42 of 46 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| BulletBench Bullet 60s: median move timemilliseconds, lower is better | 3.0 s | 36 of 46 | Claude Fable 5.2 (low reasoning) low reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
Not shown: Not your cost: prices are those charged on the run date.
CatalogBench · measured by Spring Prompt · 32 results
| Measure | Value | Rank | Configuration | Dated |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench (sales brief): channel rules broken% of products, lower is better | 0.0% | 1 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench (sales brief): claims to check% of products, lower is better | 0.0% | 1 of 28 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench (sales brief): content quality% of checks, higher is better | 98.6% | 3 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench (sales brief): failed outputs% of products, lower is better | 0.0% | 1 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench (sales brief): missing UK information% of products, lower is better | 0.0% | 1 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench (sales brief): not findable% of products, lower is better | 1.8% | 5 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench (sales brief): publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better | 66.1% | 8 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench (sales brief): reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better | 44.6% | 7 of 30 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench (sales brief): unsupported claims% of products, lower is better | 23.8% | 11 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench (sales brief): unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better | 0.46 | 8 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench (sales brief): wrong attributes% of products, lower is better | 13.1% | 3 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench (sales brief): wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better | 1.8% | 5 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench: channel compliance% of products, higher is better | 100.0% | 1 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench: channel rules broken% of products, lower is better | 0.0% | 1 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench: claims to check% of products, lower is better | 0.0% | 1 of 28 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench: conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better | 100.0% | 1 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench: content quality% of checks, higher is better | 98.6% | 2 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench: cost per productUS dollars, lower is better | $0.0875 | 30 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench: decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better | 98.7% | 2 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench: failed outputs% of products, lower is better | 0.0% | 1 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench: field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better | 98.1% | 1 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench: invented values% of filled values, lower is better | 1.9% | 18 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench: missing UK information% of products, lower is better | 0.0% | 1 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench: not findable% of products, lower is better | 1.8% | 5 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench: output tokens per producttokens, lower is better | 1,442 | 3 of 8 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench: publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better | 81.0% | 1 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench: reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better | 71.4% | 3 of 30 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench: time per productseconds, lower is better | 17.5 | 16 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench: unsupported claims% of products, lower is better | 6.0% | 6 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench: unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better | 0.23 | 7 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench: wrong attributes% of products, lower is better | 9.5% | 1 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| CatalogBench: wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better | 1.8% | 5 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
Not shown: Not your catalogue: invented products with generated images, so a model's result on your own feed can differ.
DeckBench · measured by Spring Prompt · 18 results
| Measure | Value | Rank | Configuration | Dated |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeckBench: accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better | 83.3% | 5 of 30 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| DeckBench: caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better | 16.7% | 14 of 30 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| DeckBench: clean layout% of tasks, higher is better | 83.3% | 3 of 30 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| DeckBench: cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better | $1.40 | 30 of 30 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| DeckBench: deck ratingrating, higher is better | 1,425 1,319–1,572 |
3 of 30 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| DeckBench: design quality% of the maximum, higher is better | 77.8% | 8 of 30 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| DeckBench: draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better | 16.7% | 12 of 30 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| DeckBench: findings missing% of tasks, lower is better | 16.7% | 20 of 30 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| DeckBench: head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is better | 78.0% | 6 of 30 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| DeckBench: layout defects% of tasks, lower is better | 16.7% | 3 of 30 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| DeckBench: misleading metric used% of tasks, lower is better | 16.7% | 26 of 30 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| DeckBench: output tokens per decktokens, lower is better | 33,285 | 6 of 9 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| DeckBench: presentable decks% of tasks, higher is better | 83.3% | 1 of 30 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| DeckBench: recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better | 16.7% | 12 of 30 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| DeckBench: slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better | 16.7% | 3 of 30 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| DeckBench: time per deckseconds, lower is better | 285 | 23 of 30 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| DeckBench: unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better | 16.7% | 15 of 30 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| DeckBench: unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better | 16.7% | 24 of 30 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
Not shown: Not your analysis or your brand: invented companies, six public tasks, one deck per model per task at the provider's default reasoning setting.
ROASBench · measured by Spring Prompt · 9 results
| Measure | Value | Rank | Configuration | Dated |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROASBench: audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better | 68.5 | 4 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
9 Nov 2026 |
| ROASBench: business scorescore out of 100, higher is better | 72.3 | 1 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
9 Nov 2026 |
| ROASBench: consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better | 31.6 | 11 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
9 Nov 2026 |
| ROASBench: contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better | $1,032,894 | 1 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
9 Nov 2026 |
| ROASBench: cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better | $1.76 | 30 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
9 Nov 2026 |
| ROASBench: months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better | 0 | 1 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
9 Nov 2026 |
| ROASBench: overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better | 61.3 | 1 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
9 Nov 2026 |
| ROASBench: planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better | 54.2 | 28 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
9 Nov 2026 |
| ROASBench: return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better | $0.96 | 1 of 31 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
9 Nov 2026 |
Not shown: Not real ad performance: the market is a deterministic simulation of one invented skincare brand.
SurveyBench · measured by Spring Prompt · 21 results
| Measure | Value | Rank | Configuration | Dated |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SurveyBench: analysis ratingrating, higher is better | 1,683 1,591–1,841 |
1 of 19 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| SurveyBench: analysis scorepoints of 100, higher is better | 98.0 | 1 of 19 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| SurveyBench: cost per taskUS dollars, lower is better | $1.51 | 18 of 18 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| SurveyBench: head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is better | 86.4% | 1 of 19 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| SurveyBench: leading or double-barrelled questions% of tasks, lower is better | 22.2% | 6 of 19 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| SurveyBench: mistaken next steps% of tasks, lower is better | 0.0% | 1 of 19 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| SurveyBench: numbers right% of answers, higher is better | 100.0% | 1 of 19 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| SurveyBench: objectives unanswerable% of tasks, lower is better | 0.0% | 1 of 19 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| SurveyBench: output tokens per tasktokens, lower is better | 33,902 | 4 of 8 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| SurveyBench: precision ignored% of tasks, lower is better | 0.0% | 1 of 19 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| SurveyBench: research scorepoints of 100, higher is better | 97.6 | 1 of 19 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| SurveyBench: sound research% of tasks, higher is better | 44.4% | 3 of 19 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| SurveyBench: stakeholder's view presumed% of tasks, lower is better | 0.0% | 1 of 19 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| SurveyBench: survey plan scorepoints of 100, higher is better | 96.9 | 4 of 19 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| SurveyBench: survey structure% of tasks, lower is better | 11.1% | 3 of 19 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| SurveyBench: time per taskseconds, lower is better | 337 | 14 of 18 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| SurveyBench: traps handled% of traps, higher is better | 98.6% | 2 of 19 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| SurveyBench: traps missed% of tasks, lower is better | 11.1% | 2 of 19 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| SurveyBench: unsupported findings% of tasks, lower is better | 11.1% | 3 of 19 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| SurveyBench: wrong numbers% of tasks, lower is better | 0.0% | 1 of 19 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
| SurveyBench: wrong recommendation% of tasks, lower is better | 0.0% | 1 of 19 | Claude Fable 5.2 provider default reasoning |
10 Nov 2026 |
Not shown: Not your customers or your data: invented organisations with simulated respondents, nine public tasks, one run per model per task at the provider's default reasoning setting.
Embed a score badge
A badge for its Spring Prompt Score and each of our benchmarks that ranked Claude Fable 5.2, from the current results. Paste the code into a page or README; it links back to where the result comes from.
Spring Prompt Score · 5 of 5 benchmarks
<a href="https://springprompt.com/score#anthropic-claude-fable-5-2"><img src="https://springprompt.com/badge/score/anthropic-claude-fable-5-2.svg" alt="Claude Fable 5.2 is #1 of 28 on the Spring Prompt Score (90 of 100, from 5 of 5 of our benchmarks), measured by Spring Prompt" height="20"></a>
CatalogBench · Reliably publish-ready, factual brief
<a href="https://springprompt.com/benchmarks/catalogbench?focus=anthropic-claude-fable-5-2"><img src="https://springprompt.com/badge/catalogbench/anthropic-claude-fable-5-2.svg" alt="Claude Fable 5.2 is #3 of 28 on CatalogBench (Reliably publish-ready, factual brief: 71.4%), measured by Spring Prompt" height="20"></a>
DeckBench · Deck rating
<a href="https://springprompt.com/benchmarks/deckbench?focus=anthropic-claude-fable-5-2"><img src="https://springprompt.com/badge/deckbench/anthropic-claude-fable-5-2.svg" alt="Claude Fable 5.2 is #3 of 29 on DeckBench (Deck rating: 1,425), measured by Spring Prompt" height="20"></a>
SurveyBench · Analysis rating
<a href="https://springprompt.com/benchmarks/surveybench?focus=anthropic-claude-fable-5-2"><img src="https://springprompt.com/badge/surveybench/anthropic-claude-fable-5-2.svg" alt="Claude Fable 5.2 is #1 of 18 on SurveyBench (Analysis rating: 1,683), measured by Spring Prompt" height="20"></a>
ROASBench · Score
<a href="https://springprompt.com/benchmarks/roasbench?focus=anthropic-claude-fable-5-2"><img src="https://springprompt.com/badge/roasbench/anthropic-claude-fable-5-2.svg" alt="Claude Fable 5.2 is #1 of 29 on ROASBench (Score: 61.3), measured by Spring Prompt" height="20"></a>
BulletBench · Ladder Elo
<a href="https://springprompt.com/benchmarks/bulletbench?focus=anthropic-claude-fable-5-2"><img src="https://springprompt.com/badge/bulletbench/anthropic-claude-fable-5-2.svg" alt="Claude Fable 5.2 is #15 of 37 on BulletBench (Ladder Elo: 491), measured by Spring Prompt" height="20"></a>Test Claude Fable 5.2 on your own prompt.
Benchmarks aren't your task. Run it next to cheaper and newer models on your prompt, with every answer checked and costed.