Model Comparison
Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback)
vs. R1 Distill Qwen 32B
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Anthropic, DeepSeek
Recommended Pick
An Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback) 8 metric wins Strongest on: Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence
Lowest Price
R1 Distill Qwen 32B
$0.00/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback)
70.3 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback)
62.0 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Price gap
R1 Distill Qwen 32B is ∞x cheaper on input tokens than Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback).
Reasoning gap
Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback) leads R1 Distill Qwen 32B by 17.0 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback) wins 8 measurable categories, including Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence, GPQA.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback)
Anthropic
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
R1 Distill Qwen 32B
DeepSeek
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick An Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | De R1 Distill Qwen 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $10.00/1M | $0.00/1M |
| Output Cost | $50.00/1M | $0.00/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $20.00/1M | — |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Anthropic | DeepSeek |
| Release Date | Jun 9, 2026 | Jan 20, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 64.5 tok/s | — |
| TTFT | 66092ms | — |
| Latency | 66092ms | — |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | — |
| Reasoning Score | 70.3 | 53.3 |
| Intelligence | 64.9 | 17.2 |
| Coding | 62.0 | — |
| Math | — | 63.0 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 92.6% | 61.5% |
| MMLU Pro | — | 73.9% |
| HLE | 53.3% | 5.5% |
| LiveCodeBench | — | 27.0% |
| MATH 500 | — | 94.1% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 63.0% |
| AIME (Original) | — | 68.7% |
| SciCode | 60.2% | 37.6% |
| LCR | 70.0% | 9.7% |
| IFBench | 63.5% | 22.9% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 98.5% | — |
| TerminalBench Hard | 62.9% | — |
Key Takeaways
R1 Distill Qwen 32B offers the best value at $0.00/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 70.3 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback) reaches a 62.0 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
R1 Distill Qwen 32B
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
