// head_to_head
Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.
Claude Fable 5 scores higher, Qwen3.6 Plus costs less — it depends on your workload.
Claude Fable 5 is ahead by 14.1 points overall, and Qwen3.6 Plus lists 27× cheaper per blended million tokens. Whether 14.1 points is worth that depends on how much a wrong answer costs you. Qwen3.6 Plus also leads on measured cost per point of capability, at $0.1262 per point.
anthropic
Claude Fable 5
- Blended / 1M
- $20.00
- Context
- 1M
- Released
- Jun 9, 2026
- Overall score
- 83.0
qwen
Qwen3.6 Plus
- Blended / 1M
- $0.731
- Context
- 1M
- Released
- Apr 2, 2026
- Overall score
- 68.9
Specs and pricing
| Metric | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench overall Mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better. | 83.0win | 68.9 |
| Cost per point Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability. | $0.7925 | $0.1262win |
| Blended price / 1M 3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic. | $20.00 | $0.731win |
| Input price / 1M | $10.00 | $0.325win |
| Output price / 1M | $50.00 | $1.95win |
| Cached input / 1M Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one. | $1.00 | — |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output tokens | 128Kwin | 66K |
Benchmarks by category
An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — Claude Fable 5 on top, Qwen3.6 Plus below, both out of 100.
What each one costs to run
Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.
| Workload | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Support chatbot 1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests | $5752.00/mo | $234.00/mo |
| RAG assistant 8K in / 600 out × 100K requests | $7400.00/mo | $377.00/mo |
| Coding agent 40K in / 4K out × 20K requests | $6960.00/mo | $416.00/mo |
| Document extraction 20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests | $13,300/mo | $471.25/mo |
| Bulk classification 500 in / 20 out × 5M requests | $25,500/mo | $1007.50/mo |
Which should you pick?
You are running this at volume
Qwen3.6 Plus
Lowest measured cost per point of capability at $0.1262 per point — the gap compounds with every request.
Quality matters more than the bill
Claude Fable 5
Highest overall LiveBench score of the two at 83.0.
The workload is coding or agentic work
Claude Fable 5
Leads on agentic coding — 62.2 against 41.4.
Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen3.6 Plus FAQ
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Claude Fable 5 scores higher, Qwen3.6 Plus costs less — it depends on your workload. Claude Fable 5 is ahead by 14.1 points overall, and Qwen3.6 Plus lists 27× cheaper per blended million tokens. Whether 14.1 points is worth that depends on how much a wrong answer costs you. Qwen3.6 Plus also leads on measured cost per point of capability, at $0.1262 per point.
Is Claude Fable 5 cheaper than Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus is cheaper. On a 3:1 input:output blend, Claude Fable 5 lists at $20.00 per million tokens and Qwen3.6 Plus at $0.731 — Qwen3.6 Plus is 27× cheaper. Input and output are priced separately — Claude Fable 5 charges $10.00 in and $50.00 out, Qwen3.6 Plus charges $0.325 and $1.95 — so the model that looks cheaper flips depending on how output-heavy your workload is.
Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen3.6 Plus: which scores higher on benchmarks?
Claude Fable 5 scores 83.0 and Qwen3.6 Plus scores 68.9 overall on LiveBench, the mean of its seven categories. That is a 14.1-point lead for Claude Fable 5. Category scores differ from the overall figure — a model can lead on reasoning and trail on coding, which the per-category table above breaks out.
Which gives better value for money, Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus. Cost per point divides the measured dollars LiveBench spent running the benchmark by the score it earned, so it captures something token pricing misses: a reasoning model can emit many times more tokens than its per-token rate suggests. Claude Fable 5 works out at $0.7925 per point and Qwen3.6 Plus at $0.1262.
Does Claude Fable 5 or Qwen3.6 Plus have a bigger context window?
They are effectively the same — 1M for Claude Fable 5 and 1M for Qwen3.6 Plus.
Do Claude Fable 5 and Qwen3.6 Plus support prompt caching?
Claude Fable 5 publishes a cached-input rate of $1.00 per million tokens against a full input rate of $10.00. The catalogue lists no separate cached rate for Qwen3.6 Plus, which means the provider does not price it separately here — not that caching is unavailable.
Related comparisons
How these numbers are produced
- Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
- Scores — LiveBench release 2026-06-25, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
- Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
- “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.
Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.