by datastudy.nl

Head-to-head comparisons of frontier AI models, rebuilt daily from public benchmark data

Head to head

GLM-5.2 vs Claude Fable 5

How GLM-5.2 and Claude Fable 5 stack up across benchmarks, pricing, speed, and the workloads that matter.

GLM-5.2

Zhipu AI · Open weights

Blended price$1.18per 1M tokens
Context1.05Mtokens
Speed0tok/s
Benchmarks19results
VS

Claude Fable 5

Anthropic · Proprietary

Blended price$14.44per 1M tokens
Context1Mtokens
Speed1.2tok/s
Benchmarks18results

GLM-5.2 is the cheaper of the two at $1.18 per million blended tokens, about 12.26x less than Claude Fable 5 at $14.44. On coding, Claude Fable 5 leads by about 23 points in our normalized benchmark average.

The table below breaks down every workload axis where both models have published results. Each score is a normalized 0 to 1 average across the benchmarks tagged with that category. A gap of a few points is noise; a gap of ten or more is a real difference in capability. Where one model has not reported a result, the cell shows n/a and the missing benchmark does not drag its average down.

Benchmark scores by workload

WorkloadGLM-5.2Claude Fable 5Edge
Reasoning 80% 59% +21.4 pts
Coding 52% 75% +22.8 pts
Agents & tool use 60% 55% +5.3 pts
Math 75% 71% +3.3 pts
Vision & multimodal 55% 55% +0.7 pts
Knowledge & factuality 91% 64% +26.8 pts

The headline benchmarks below are the most widely cited individual tests. GPQA Diamond measures graduate-level reasoning in physics, chemistry, and biology. SWE-Bench Verified tests whether a model can fix real GitHub issues. MMMU-Pro covers college-level multimodal understanding across six disciplines. AIME and FrontierMath push competitive and research math. BrowseComp measures web research ability.

Headline benchmarks

BenchmarkGLM-5.2Claude Fable 5
GPQA 91% n/a
SWE-Bench Verified n/a 95%

Benchmarks tell you what a model can do in a controlled setting. They do not tell you whether it will work on your specific task, with your specific data, at your specific scale. The recommendations below map each common workload to whichever of these two models scores higher on the relevant axis. Use them as a starting point, not a final answer.

Which should you choose?

Hard reasoning

Multi-step analysis, research, and problems that need sustained thought.

GLM-5.2

Coding & software

Writing, reviewing, and debugging code across a real codebase.

Claude Fable 5

Agents & tool use

Long-running agents that call tools, browse, and act on their own.

GLM-5.2

Math & science

Formal math, competitive problems, and quantitative science.

GLM-5.2

Vision & documents

Reading images, screenshots, charts, and dense documents.

Claude Fable 5

High-volume & cost-sensitive

Cheap, repetitive calls where the blended token price dominates.

GLM-5.2

Scores are normalized from public benchmarks published by llm-stats.com and averaged per workload. Pricing is the blended input/output cost per million tokens at an 8:1 mix. Refreshes daily. How this works.