Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM 5.2

Benchmark Performance

Available Benchmarks

No Protocol-Matched Benchmark Yet.Results appear here only when both models share the same benchmark version, metric, evaluation protocol, and evidence class.
FieldAt a Glance
Anthropic · activeClaude Fable 5.1Verified Sep 2, 2026
Z.ai · activeGLM 5.2Verified Aug 28, 2026

Technical Differences

Side-by-Side Facts

Indexable
FieldClaude Fable 5.1GLM-5.2
DeveloperAnthropicZ.ai
FamilyClaude 5 1Glm 5 2
ModelClaude Fable 5.1GLM-5.2
VersionClaude Fable 5.1GLM-5.2
Lifecycleactiveactive
Released2026-09-01Unknown
Knowledge cutoff2026-06-01Unknown
Input modalitiesText, ImageText
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window1,000K1,049K
Total parametersUnknown753.3B
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseUnknownmit
Open weightsNoYes
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableNoYes
Provider accessAnthropic (Standard)Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoning, toolschat, generation, reasoning, tools

13 comparable fields · 9 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate

Claude Fable 5.1 Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Input price$10.00
Output price$50.00
Serving providers1
Canonical IDanthropic/claude-fable-5-1

GLM 5.2 Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Input price$0.75
Output price$2.40
Serving providers5
Canonical IDzai-org/GLM-5.2

Internal Comparison Graph

Related Comparisons

All text comparisons →
APairBContext
vsfamily variantsimage, text
vscross-developer peersimage, text
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peersimage, text
vscross-developer peersimage, text
vscross-developer peersimage, text
vscross-developer peersimage, text
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peersimage, text
vscross-developer peersimage, text

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM 5.2 FAQs

Is Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM 5.2 better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Fable 5.1 and GLM 5.2, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM 5.2?+

Claude Fable 5.1 is $10.00 and GLM 5.2 is $0.75 per million tokens, so GLM 5.2 is cheaper on this metric. Claude Fable 5.1 is $50.00 and GLM 5.2 is $2.40 per million tokens, so GLM 5.2 is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM 5.2?+

GLM 5.2 has the larger sourced context window. Claude Fable 5.1 supports 1,000K and GLM 5.2 supports 1,049K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM 5.2?+

There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.

Can Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM 5.2 be self-hosted?+

GLM 5.2 is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Claude Fable 5.1 is not marked open weight; GLM 5.2 is open weight.

Can Claude Fable 5.1 and GLM 5.2 understand images?+

Claude Fable 5.1 is documented with image input; GLM 5.2 is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM 5.2?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Claude Fable 5.1 is 128K and GLM 5.2 is —.

Do Claude Fable 5.1 and GLM 5.2 support reasoning and tool use?+

Claude Fable 5.1: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. GLM 5.2: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM 5.2?+

Claude Fable 5.1 has 1 sourced provider route; GLM 5.2 has 5, so GLM 5.2 has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM 5.2?+

There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.

Send Feedback