// head_to_head
Claude Fable 5 vs GLM 5.3 Flash
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, GLM 5.3 Flash costs less — it depends on your workload.
Claude Fable 5 is ahead by 11.4 points overall, and GLM 5.3 Flash lists 168× cheaper per blended million tokens. Whether 11.4 points is worth that depends on how much a wrong answer costs you. GLM 5.3 Flash also leads on measured cost per point of capability, at $0.0161 per point.
anthropic
Claude Fable 5
- Blended / 1M
- $20.00
- Context
- 1M
- Released
- Jun 9, 2026
- Overall score
- 83.0
z-ai
GLM 5.3 Flash
- Blended / 1M
- $0.119
- Context
- 1.3M
- Released
- Aug 26, 2026
- Overall score
- 71.6
Specs and pricing
| Metric | Claude Fable 5 | GLM 5.3 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench overall Mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better. | 83.0win | 71.6 |
| Cost per point Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability. | $0.7925 | $0.0161win |
| Blended price / 1M 3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic. | $20.00 | $0.119win |
| Input price / 1M | $10.00 | $0.075win |
| Output price / 1M | $50.00 | $0.250win |
| Cached input / 1M Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one. | $1.00 | $0.015win |
| Context window | 1M | 1.3Mwin |
| Max output tokens | 128K | 131K |
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, GLM 5.3 Flash 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 | GLM 5.3 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Support chatbot 1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests | $5752.00/mo | $33.68/mo |
| RAG assistant 8K in / 600 out × 100K requests | $7400.00/mo | $51.00/mo |
| Coding agent 40K in / 4K out × 20K requests | $6960.00/mo | $46.40/mo |
| Document extraction 20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests | $13,300/mo | $90.75/mo |
| Bulk classification 500 in / 20 out × 5M requests | $25,500/mo | $182.50/mo |
Which should you pick?
You are running this at volume
GLM 5.3 Flash
Lowest measured cost per point of capability at $0.0161 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 56.8.
You need to fit large documents in one call
GLM 5.3 Flash
Wider context window — 1.3M against 1M.
Claude Fable 5 vs GLM 5.3 Flash FAQ
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or GLM 5.3 Flash?
Claude Fable 5 scores higher, GLM 5.3 Flash costs less — it depends on your workload. Claude Fable 5 is ahead by 11.4 points overall, and GLM 5.3 Flash lists 168× cheaper per blended million tokens. Whether 11.4 points is worth that depends on how much a wrong answer costs you. GLM 5.3 Flash also leads on measured cost per point of capability, at $0.0161 per point.
Is Claude Fable 5 cheaper than GLM 5.3 Flash?
GLM 5.3 Flash is cheaper. On a 3:1 input:output blend, Claude Fable 5 lists at $20.00 per million tokens and GLM 5.3 Flash at $0.119 — GLM 5.3 Flash is 168× cheaper. Input and output are priced separately — Claude Fable 5 charges $10.00 in and $50.00 out, GLM 5.3 Flash charges $0.075 and $0.250 — so the model that looks cheaper flips depending on how output-heavy your workload is.
Claude Fable 5 vs GLM 5.3 Flash: which scores higher on benchmarks?
Claude Fable 5 scores 83.0 and GLM 5.3 Flash scores 71.6 overall on LiveBench, the mean of its seven categories. That is a 11.4-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 GLM 5.3 Flash?
GLM 5.3 Flash. 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 GLM 5.3 Flash at $0.0161.
Does Claude Fable 5 or GLM 5.3 Flash have a bigger context window?
GLM 5.3 Flash has the larger context window: 1M for Claude Fable 5 against 1.3M for GLM 5.3 Flash. Note that a window you can fill is not a window you should fill — retrieval quality usually degrades well before the limit, and you pay for every token you put in it.
Do Claude Fable 5 and GLM 5.3 Flash support prompt caching?
Both publish a cached-input rate: $1.00 per million for Claude Fable 5 and $0.015 for GLM 5.3 Flash, against full input rates of $10.00 and $0.075. On a workload with a long stable prefix — a system prompt, a tool schema, a retrieved corpus — that changes the economics more than the headline price does.
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.