Fast-moving cluster — prices and models change
Qwen 3.8 Max is announced but not released, and every vendor here updates pricing and weights on its own schedule. Figures below are dated as of August 2026 and sourced from vendor pages; check the alternatives page for the current picture.
See the up-to-date alternatives pageModel comparison · Chinese cluster
Fable 5 vs Chinese Models
Claude Fable 5 against Qwen 3.8 Max, Kimi K3, GLM 5.2, DeepSeek V4 Pro and DeepSeek V4 Flash — price, coding benchmarks, open weights and the export-control reality, as of August 2026.
The short version
For most mainstream work Claude Fable 5 stays the reference, but the Chinese cluster competes hard on price and open weights. Fable 5 wins on agentic coding and on safety/retention guarantees; DeepSeek, GLM and Qwen win on cost and self-hosting; Kimi K3 is the closest head-to-head. Export-control timing is a real differentiator — see below.
Master matrix
Price per million tokens (input / output), context window, open-source status and best-fit, as of August 2026. Fable 5 prices come from Anthropic's published rates; competitor rates are vendor figures labeled by source.
| Model | Input / $1M | Output / $1M | Context | Open-source | Best for | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Fable 5 | $10.00 | $50.00 | 1M | Closed API | Agentic coding + safety | Anthropic-published |
| Qwen 3.8 Max | ≈$2.00 | ≈$6.00 | 1M | Announced, not released | Open weights (announced) | Vendor-published |
| Kimi K3 | $3.00 | $15.00 | 1M | Open weights | Closest head-to-head quality | Vendor-published |
| GLM 5.2 | ~$1.40 | ~$4.40 | 1M | Open weights (MIT) | Open weights, strong coding | Vendor-published |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | $0.435 | $0.87 | 1M | Open weights | Cheapest open agentic | Vendor-published |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | $0.14 | $0.28 | 1M | Open weights (MIT) | Lowest-cost high volume | Vendor-published |
Prices are USD per million tokens, as of August 2026. Fable 5 rates are Anthropic-published; competitor rates are as published by each vendor (labeled 'vendor') — Qwen 3.8 Max rates are announced target pricing, not confirmed on a released model.
Coding benchmarks
Published numbers only. Every cell is labeled by source — 'vendor' means the figure is vendor-reported and not independently confirmed; 'not published' means the vendor has not released a number.
| Model | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen 3.8 Max | Kimi K3 | GLM 5.2 | DeepSeek V4 Pro | DeepSeek V4 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Pro | 80.3% | table.val_vendor | table.val_vendor | 62.1% | 55.4% | table.val_not_published |
| FrontierCode | 29.3% | table.val_none | table.val_none | table.val_none | table.val_none | table.val_none |
Anthropic-published: Fable 5's 80.3% on SWE-bench Pro and 29.3% on FrontierCode. GLM 5.2 (62.1% SWE-bench Pro) and DeepSeek V4 Pro (55.4%) are vendor-reported and not independently confirmed. Qwen and Kimi have not published comparable figures — labeled 'not confirmed' rather than guessed.
Benchmarks are not directly comparable across vendors — each runs its own harness and prompt set. Treat cross-model deltas as directional, not exact.
Which should you pick?
Five decision rows, each mapped to the model that fits.
You want self-hosting or open weights
GLM 5.2 (MIT) and the DeepSeek V4 line are the strong picks — downloadable weights you can run on your own hardware. Qwen 3.8 Max promises the same but is not released yet.
You're cost-sensitive at high volume
DeepSeek V4 Flash (~$0.14/$0.28) and V4 Pro ($0.435/$0.87) are the cheapest by a wide margin. Fable 5 is $10/$50 — justifiable when quality and guarantees matter, not for bulk throughput.
You want the closest quality challenger
Kimi K3 is the closest head-to-head to Fable 5 on general coding quality, at ~$3/$15. It trails on the hardest agentic tasks, but the gap narrows on everyday work.
You need agentic coding and safety
Fable 5 leads on agentic coding (SWE-bench Pro 80.3%) and backs it with safety classifiers, retention guarantees and Anthropic's enterprise support. This is the model's clearest win.
Retention and export-control matter to you
Fable 5's mandatory 30-day retention, no-ZDR stance and availability outside export-controlled Chinese model channels make it the safer compliance pick for regulated enterprises. See the export-control section.
These are decision rules, not rankings — the right model depends on your workload, your data and your compliance posture.
Export control & compliance
A differentiator worth owning: US export-control rules and data-retention policy shape real deployment choices.
US export-control restrictions affect which advanced Chinese models are available and on what terms. As of August 2026, access and licensing for the cluster shift with the regulatory timeline — treat availability as a moving target and verify before you commit.
Fable 5's mandatory 30-day data retention and no-zero-data-retention (no-ZDR) stance are deliberate trade-offs for safety. Models that promise zero retention may not carry the same guarantees — a real difference if your data is sensitive.
Mainland-China access is a separate consideration: Chinese vendors often serve mainland users directly, while Anthropic's API is not available the same way in mainland China. Choose based on where your users and your data actually live.
Estimate the real cost
Headline token prices hide the workload cost — tokenizer inflation, caching, effort and output volume all move the number. Run the cost calculator for your actual usage before you pick.
Cost calculator
Which model matches your workload?
Compare across the full leaderboard, or price out your specific workload before you decide.