Back to Text & reasoning
Model comparison
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Fable 5
Compare Claude Opus 5.5 and Claude Fable 5 using the same provider-sourced text & reasoning rubric. No mystery score and no invented benchmark ranking.
Estimate your cost
Set your usage. Your estimate updates as you type.
Example: 6,000 input tokens for 10 pages, plus a 500-token summary. Page lengths vary; adjust the numbers below.
One run sends your input to the model once and receives an answer. Tokens are pieces of text: input is what you send, output is the answer you receive.
Advanced options
How this estimate works
Estimates exclude taxes, tools, cache storage/writes, free allowances and custom discounts. Image estimates cover output only, not prompt or reference-image charges. Quality modes differ by model. Unlisted settings are not treated as free.
| Model | Access | Estimated total (USD) |
|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 5.5Anthropic | Anthropic | $0.034 |
| Claude Fable 5Anthropic | Anthropic | $0.085 |
Quick take
Claude Opus 5.5
A Claude model for large code changes, detailed research and business tasks that take many steps.
Best for
- Codebase changes
- Multi-step workflows
Watch out for
Existing integrations need a compatibility check: thinking cannot be disabled and forced tool calls are not supported. Fast mode and batch processing have different prices.
Claude Fable 5
The original Fable model for complex coding and multi-step work, retained for existing integrations.
Best for
- Complex coding
- Migration evaluations
Watch out for
Check the newer Fable 5.1 and the mandatory retention requirements before starting a new project.
Compare the published facts
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Fable 5
Values use each provider's own published units and limits. A blank means the provider did not publish a directly comparable value in the sources reviewed.
| Text & reasoning | Claude Opus 5.5 | Claude Fable 5 |
|---|---|---|
| Context windowMaximum combined prompt and working context documented by the provider. | 1M tokens | 1M tokens |
| Maximum outputProvider-published response limit, where available. | 128K tokens | 128K tokens |
| Knowledge cutoffLatest reliable knowledge date explicitly published by the model provider. Search and connected tools can retrieve newer information but do not change the model's built-in cutoff. | June 2026 | January 2026 |
| Input priceCurrent standard list price per million input tokens unless noted. | $4 / 1M | $10 / 1M |
| Output priceCurrent standard list price per million output tokens unless noted. | $20 / 1M | $50 / 1M |
| InputsMedia types accepted by the listed model endpoint. | Text, image | Text, image |
| Tools & agentsSelected native tools and agent-building capabilities, not an exhaustive list. | Tool use, agents, vision, coding workflows | Tool use, agents, vision, coding workflows |
How to choose
Compare the job, not the hype.
Start with the job you need to complete, then validate cost, access, and policy details on your exact provider route.
Claude Opus 5.5
Anthropic does not train on API data without express permission. Retention depends on the API feature, account agreement and cloud provider.
Provider and API links
Claude Fable 5
Claude Fable 5 requires 30-day retention unless Anthropic authorizes an exception. API data is not used for training without express permission.
Provider and API links
Frequently asked questions
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Fable 5 FAQ
What is the main difference between Claude Opus 5.5 and Claude Fable 5?
Claude Opus 5.5: A Claude model for large code changes, detailed research and business tasks that take many steps. Claude Fable 5: The original Fable model for complex coding and multi-step work, retained for existing integrations.
Should I choose Claude Opus 5.5 or Claude Fable 5?
Consider Claude Opus 5.5 when your priority is Codebase changes. Consider Claude Fable 5 when your priority is Complex coding. Test both with your own data and provider route before committing.
Is this Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Fable 5 comparison based on Cody benchmarks?
No. This comparison aligns provider-published facts for the Text & reasoning category. It does not claim a universal winner or combine incompatible third-party benchmark scores.