Which is better: Claude Fable 5.2 or SWE-2?

Verdict: Claude Fable 5.2 ranks higher (#1 vs #23) and wins 5 of 5 shared benchmarks; SWE-2 costs less ($0/$0 vs $8.00/$40.0 per 1M tokens). AskClash compares Claude Fable 5.2 and SWE-2 side by side across SWE-bench, GPQA, HLE, Terminal-Bench, coding agent scores, token pricing, AskClash ACB, and context window so you can see which model wins on each benchmark.

How do Claude Fable 5.2 and SWE-2 compare on coding benchmarks?

The comparison table shows SWE-bench, SWE-Pro, SWE-Atlas, Terminal-Bench, DeepSWE, and coding agent index scores for both Claude Fable 5.2 and SWE-2 when publicly disclosed.

LLM Comparison

Claude Fable 5.2 vs SWE-2: benchmark scores, pricing & comparison.

Side-by-side Claude Fable 5.2 vs SWE-2 comparison across SWE-bench, GPQA, HLE, Terminal-Bench, coding agent scores, token pricing, context window, and AskClash RWT. Green marks the winner on each benchmark.

Verdict: Claude Fable 5.2 ranks higher (#1 vs #23) and wins 5 of 5 shared benchmarks; SWE-2 costs less ($0/$0 vs $8.00/$40.0 per 1M tokens).

Open live leaderboard Claude Fable 5.2 model page SWE-2 model page

Rank #1 vs #23AskClash overall scores 81.6 vs 55.1.

Pricing $8.00/$40.0 vs $0/$0Input and output token prices per 1M tokens when published.

Proprietary vs ProprietaryAnthropic vs Cognition.

Claude Fable 5.2 vs SWE-2 benchmark comparison

Green cells highlight the winning model for each metric. Scores are cached from the AskClash LLM leaderboard snapshot.

Metric	Claude Fable 5.2	SWE-2
Overall Score	81.6	55.1
Leaderboard Rank	#1	#23
ACB	91.4	60.0
RWT	—	8.5
Coding Agent Index	—	51.9
HLE	74.2	43.5
GPQA	—	93.5
SWE-Pro	93.0	—
SWE-Atlas	—	66.1
Terminal-Bench	59.6	27.3
DeepSWE	74.3	73.0
GDPval-AA	1831.0	1668.0
MCP Atlas	—	84.2
Finance Agent	—	54.4
CharXiv	—	84.8
MMMU-Pro	—	81.6
Input Price (per 1M tokens)	$8.00	$0
Output Price (per 1M tokens)	$40.0	$0
Context Window	1M	256K
Benchmarks Published	9	13

Claude Fable 5.2 vs SWE-2 head-to-head charts

Claude Fable 5.2 leads 6 and SWE-2 leads 0 of 6 shared benchmarks. SWE-2 is cheaper on a defined 1M-input / 200K-output workload. Charts show only benchmarks both models publish.

Claude Fable 5.2SWE-2

Overall

81.6Claude Fable 5.2

55.1SWE-2

ACB

91.4Claude Fable 5.2

60.0SWE-2

HLE

74.2Claude Fable 5.2

43.5SWE-2

Terminal-Bench

59.6Claude Fable 5.2

27.3SWE-2

DeepSWE

74.3Claude Fable 5.2

73.0SWE-2

GDPval-AA

1831.0Claude Fable 5.2

1668.0SWE-2

Claude Fable 5.2

Input$8.00

Output$40.0

Workload$16

Context1M

SWE-2

Input$0

Output$0

Workload$0.00

Context256K

Workload = published cost of 1M input + 200K output tokens. Open the live leaderboard for interactive compare charts.

More Claude Fable 5.2 and SWE-2 comparisons

Explore how Claude Fable 5.2 and SWE-2 stack up against other top-ranked LLMs.

Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Opus 5.5 Claude Opus 5.5 vs SWE-2 Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5 Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs SWE-2 Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Fable 5.1 Claude Fable 5.1 vs SWE-2 Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 4 Argon Gemini 4 Argon vs SWE-2 Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Opus 5 Claude Opus 5 vs SWE-2

How to read this comparison

Benchmark scores

Higher is better for all benchmark scores (SWE-bench, GPQA, HLE, Terminal-Bench, etc.). Green marks the model with the higher score.

Token pricing

Lower is better for input and output prices. Green marks the cheaper model per 1M tokens.

Coverage matters

Models with fewer disclosed benchmark cells may have inflated percentile scores. Check the benchmark cell count for context.

This comparison page is generated from the AskClash LLM leaderboard cache. Open the live leaderboard for real-time scores and interactive filtering.