← All models
Compare

Claude Fable 5 vs Ling-3.0-flash

Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic) and Ling-3.0-flash () compared on benchmarks, pricing, context window, and use-case rankings.

AttributeClaude Fable 5Anthropic · 51 in the newsLing-3.0-flash · 1 in the news
Scores
Intelligence (ECI)163
Coding9635
Math96
Reasoning & Knowledge8942
Agentic & Tools96
Specifications
DeveloperAnthropic
FamilyClaude
ReleasedJun 9, 2026Jul 23, 2026
Parameters
AvailabilityAPI access
Context window1M262K
Price — $/M input$10.00$0.06
Price — $/M output$50.00$0.18
Inputstext, image, filetext
Outputstexttext
Benchmarks
AIME 2024/2025100%
APEX45%
ARC-AGI99%
ARC-AGI-289%
GPQA Diamond86%86%
Humanity's Last Exam56%24%
SciCode61%42%
SimpleBench82%
SimpleQA Verified71%
WebDev Arena1626
WeirdML92%
τ²-bench99%

Use-case scores are 0–100 percentile composites across each area’s benchmarks, ranked against every model from the past year. Highlighted cells lead each row. Open a model for the full picture.

Frequently asked questions

Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5 or Ling-3.0-flash?

Ling-3.0-flash is cheaper on input tokens at $0.06 per million, versus $10.00 (representative OpenRouter pricing).

Which has a larger context window, Claude Fable 5 or Ling-3.0-flash?

Claude Fable 5 supports up to 1M tokens, compared with 262K for the other.

Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5 or Ling-3.0-flash?

Across coding benchmarks like SWE-bench Verified and Terminal-Bench, Claude Fable 5 ranks higher — 96th vs 35th percentile among the models tracked on Model Beat.

Want a different match-up? Open the compare tool to add or swap models.

Benchmarks & model data from Epoch AI (CC BY); pricing & specs from OpenRouter. ECI = Epoch Capabilities Index.