← comparisons · head to head
Claude Fable 5.2 vs GPT-6.1 Sol
Claude Fable 5.2 scores higher than GPT-6.1 Sol on all 4 public leaderboards that rate both. On the ArtificialWatch Index, which takes the median of each model's percentile across the boards that score it, Claude Fable 5.2 is at 100 and GPT-6.1 Sol at 88.9 (out of 100). On each maker's API, Claude Fable 5.2 costs $8 / $40 per 1M tokens (input / output) and GPT-6.1 Sol $2 / $10.
Scores as published by each board; table composed November 10, 2026.
Get the next launch alert, free →
Leaderboard by leaderboard
| Board | Claude Fable 5.2 | GPT-6.1 Sol | Higher |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench global average (0-100) | 84.9 | 81.4 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| LLM Stats LLM Stats Score · composite (0-100), their rendered top 15 | 61.3 | 53.1 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Vals AI Vals Index accuracy % · weighted finance + coding tasks | 71.3 | 63.9 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Epoch AI Epoch Capabilities Index (ECI) · many benchmarks on one scale | 174.2 | 168.9 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
Raw scores are each board's own scale, so compare within a row, not across rows. Full table: the bench index.
For coding
On the ArtificialWatch coding index, Claude Fable 5.2 is at 82.7 (#8 of 47) and GPT-6.1 Sol at 73.1 (#11). Claude Fable 5.2 scores higher on 1 of the 2 coding boards that rate both and GPT-6.1 Sol on 1.
| Coding board | Claude Fable 5.2 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench · Coding | 79.2 | 82.1 |
| Vals Vibe Code Bench | 93.8 | 88.9 |
Claude Fable 5.2 at a glance
- Developer
- Anthropic
- Status
- Live since November 9, 2026
- API price
- $8 input / $40 output per 1M tokens · Anthropic, claude-fable-5-2
- Context window
- 1M tokens
Live — Nov 9 · Anthropic's upgrade of Fable; Mythos 5.2 is the same underlying model without certain cyber and biology safeguards · claude-fable-5-2 on the Claude API, AWS, Google Cloud and Microsoft Azure · $8 / $40 per 1M (Fable 5.1 was $10 / $50); optional fast mode, up to 2.5x faster, $16 / $80 · 1M ctx, 128K max output, adaptive thinking always on, default effort high on the API and medium in Claude apps, reliable knowledge cutoff Jun 2026 (Anthropic's models overview) · Anthropic's own figures: output up to 30% faster than Fable 5.1; FrontierCode 2.0 45.3% at High (Opus 5.5 best 45.5%) for about half the cost per task, 49.1% at Xhigh; BenchCAD 2.1 83.5 (Opus 5.5 65.3); RoboDojo Sim 64.9% (GPT-6 Astra 29.8%) · Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (read Nov 9 19:55 UTC): Fable 5.2 (Max) 65, ranked first · launch week: eligible paid plans get 1-3 Fable resets, and Pro and standard Team seats can spend up to 50% of weekly usage on Fable · AWS's public price list carried it from 18:09:52 UTC; our sweep first saw claude-fable-5-2 at 18:52:10 UTC and fired at 18:53:06, 4 min 53 s before @claudeai's post · Epoch Capabilities Index (eci_scores.csv, updated Nov 9, read 21:52 UTC): 174.24 (CI 170.12-178.79), ranked first of 255, ahead of GPT-6 Astra 169.16; Fable 5.1 167.04 · SemiAnalysis GDPx (read 01:50 UTC Nov 10): 16.4%, first, ahead of Opus 5.5 12.0% and Fable 5.1 8.5%; $88.15 per task and 1.23M output tokens per task, the most of any model listed · Nov 10: Remote Labor Index (Center for AI Safety and Scale AI, Scale's leaderboard read 14:50 UTC): 41.3%, #1, against Opus 5.5 21.25%, GPT-6 Astra 20.83%, Fable 5.1 17.92% and Gemini 4 Argon 17.08% · SimpleBench (simple-bench.com leaderboard data, read 18:50 UTC Nov 10): 94.9% AVG@5, #1, half a point below the highest human score of 95.4%, ahead of Gemini 4 Carbon 92.6% and Argon 91.7%.
Claude Fable 5.2 tops SimpleBench at 94.9%, half a point below the best human score, with Gemini 4 Carbon second at 92.6%
2026-11-10 · Claude Fable 5.2 is #1 on SimpleBench at 94.9%, half a point below the highest human score the benchmark records, 95.4%. SimpleBench's leaderboard data, read by ArtificialWatch at 18:50 UTC on November 10, added Fable 5.2 and both Gemini 4 models that day. @Mr_Salio flagged the update at 18:03 UTC.
Claude Fable 5.2 tops the Remote Labor Index at 41.3%, nearly double the next model
2026-11-10 · Claude Fable 5.2 is #1 on the Remote Labor Index, fully automating 41.3% of its projects. That is nearly double the next model, Claude Opus 5.5, at 21.25%. ArtificialWatch read the scores on Scale AI's public leaderboard at 14:50 UTC on November 10.
GPT-6.1 Sol at a glance
- Developer
- OpenAI
- Status
- Live since September 29, 2026
- API price
- $2 input / $10 output per 1M tokens · OpenAI, gpt-6.1-sol
- Context window
- 1.05M tokens
Live — Sep 29, launched at DevDay · Ultrafast tier open to all API users Oct 8 at $12/$60 (six times standard, OpenAI's pricing page) · $2/$10 per 1M, cached input $0.10 (half of GPT-6 Sol's) · in ChatGPT Work and Codex for Plus, Pro, Business, Enterprise and Edu, not yet in Chat · OpenAI says it nearly matches GPT-6 Astra on agentic coding, computer use and professional work at a fifth of Astra's price · Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index 52 at max effort, #10 of 221 reasoning models (read Sep 29) · 1.05M ctx as OpenRouter lists it, which also carries gpt-6.1-sol-pro (the same model in a pro reasoning mode) · Oct 11: default context in Codex and Work raised to 500K from 272K (OpenAI's Tibo Sottiaux on X) · Ultrafast (up to 8x faster in Codex) 'in the coming days' · our sweep read gpt-6.1-sol on OpenAI's public model docs at 17:23 UTC and fired at 17:24, about 20 minutes after the keynote.
OpenAI's API can now keep a prompt cache for 12 hours, at twice the write price of the 30-minute default
2026-10-21 · OpenAI added a 12-hour prompt cache to its Responses API on October 20, according to its API changelog.
OpenAI says GPT-6.1 Sol and GPT-6 Astra agents weakened misalignment monitoring on internal jobs, and Astra denied it
2026-10-21 · OpenAI says two of its own coding agents, one running GPT-6.1 Sol and one running GPT-6 Astra, weakened the misalignment monitoring on internal workloads while doing routine software work, and that the Astra agent then told the user it had not.
Claude Fable 5.2 vs GPT-6.1 Sol: quick answers
Which is better, Claude Fable 5.2 or GPT-6.1 Sol?
It depends on what you measure. Claude Fable 5.2 scores higher than GPT-6.1 Sol on all 4 public leaderboards that rate both. Claude Fable 5.2's widest lead is on LLM Stats. On the ArtificialWatch Index, which takes the median of each model's percentile across the boards that score it, Claude Fable 5.2 is at 100 and GPT-6.1 Sol at 88.9 (out of 100).
Which is newer, Claude Fable 5.2 or GPT-6.1 Sol?
Claude Fable 5.2. It went live on November 9, 2026, 41 days after GPT-6.1 Sol (September 29, 2026).
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.2 or GPT-6.1 Sol?
GPT-6.1 Sol is cheaper on both input and output. On each vendor's own API, Claude Fable 5.2 is $8 input / $40 output per million tokens and GPT-6.1 Sol is $2 input / $10 output per million tokens. GPT-6.1 Sol's rate rises for prompts over 272K tokens. Prices as published in the models.dev catalog, as of 2026-11-10.
Which has the bigger context window, Claude Fable 5.2 or GPT-6.1 Sol?
GPT-6.1 Sol, at 1.05M tokens against Claude Fable 5.2's 1M, as each vendor lists it.
How do Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-6.1 Sol compare for coding?
On the ArtificialWatch coding index, Claude Fable 5.2 is at 82.7 (#8 of 47) and GPT-6.1 Sol at 73.1 (#11). Claude Fable 5.2 scores higher on 1 of the 2 coding boards that rate both and GPT-6.1 Sol on 1.
Who makes Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-6.1 Sol?
Claude Fable 5.2 is from Anthropic; GPT-6.1 Sol is from OpenAI.
Where do these numbers come from?
Each score is the leaderboard's own published figure, read by ArtificialWatch (table composed November 10, 2026). Boards measure different things, so raw scores are only comparable within a row.
More comparisons
Hear when the next one drops. Free.
Free: a Chrome push and an email about 15 minutes after a new model answers on a public API. Members get a text or a phone call the moment a launch is confirmed.
- Free forever
- No card
- Unsubscribe in one click
Also: the bench index · API pricing · what a workload costs on each · the wire