← All models
Compare

Claude Fable 5 vs Trinity Large Thinking

Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic) and Trinity Large Thinking (Arcee AI) compared on benchmarks, pricing, context window, and use-case rankings.

AttributeClaude Fable 5Anthropic · 40 in the newsTrinity Large ThinkingArcee AI
Scores
Intelligence (ECI)161
Coding9912
Math95
Reasoning & Knowledge9625
Agentic & Tools9860
Specifications
DeveloperAnthropicArcee AI
FamilyClaude
ReleasedJun 9, 2026Apr 1, 2026
Parameters
AvailabilityAPI access
Context window1M262K
Price — $/M input$10.00$0.25
Price — $/M output$50.00$0.80
Inputstext, image, filetext
Outputstexttext
Benchmarks
AIME 2024/2025100%
APEX45%
GPQA Diamond93%75%
Humanity's Last Exam53%15%
SciCode60%36%
SimpleBench82%
SimpleQA Verified68%
WebDev Arena16541239
WeirdML92%
τ²-bench99%90%

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 Trinity Large Thinking?

Trinity Large Thinking is cheaper on input tokens at $0.25 per million, versus $10.00 (representative OpenRouter pricing).

Which has a larger context window, Claude Fable 5 or Trinity Large Thinking?

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

Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5 or Trinity Large Thinking?

Across coding benchmarks like SWE-bench Verified and Terminal-Bench, Claude Fable 5 ranks higher — 99th vs 12th 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.