Model Comparison
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Opus 4.8
Claude Fable 5.2 (xhigh) leads Claude Opus 4.8 (max effort) by 747 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 672 Elo apart. Even Claude Fable 5.2's lowest-rated configuration, Claude Fable 5.2 (low), ranks above Claude Opus 4.8 (max effort). Among 87 models, each ranked by its best configuration, Claude Fable 5.2 is #2 and Claude Opus 4.8 is #19. Cost per script: $2.22 for Claude Fable 5.2 (xhigh) and $1.23 for Claude Opus 4.8 (max effort).
Last updated , from board data generated at 17:52 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickClaude Fable 5.2
Claude Fable 5.2 (high)
Pick Claude Fable 5.2 (high) as the step up from Opus 4.8 at max effort, at $1.22 a script and done in 4.0 minutes.
PickClaude Opus 4.8
Claude Opus 4.8 (high)
Pick Claude Opus 4.8 (high) for quick drafts at $0.193 in 1.4 minutes, with a better hook score than its own max effort setting.
If you run Claude Opus 4.8 at max effort, Claude Fable 5.2 (high) is the swap I'd make, and it costs no more. Claude Opus 4.8 (max effort) charges $1.23 a script and takes 9.8 minutes. Fable 5.2 at high charges $1.22, finishes in 4.0 minutes and sits 585 Elo higher, with 95% ranges that don't overlap. At the top, Claude Fable 5.2 (xhigh) is 747 Elo above Opus's best: the #2 model of 87 against the #19 model, each ranked by its best configuration. Both models get a real return from thinking. Fable gains 162 Elo from high to xhigh for about 1.8 times the cost, Opus gains 137 from high to max effort for about 6.4 times, and both steps come with separate ranges. Fable's max effort doesn't pay, 27 Elo below xhigh at about 2.6 times the price. Opus also swings more from draft to draft at both settings. Claude Opus 4.8 (high) keeps a small place: $0.193 a script, 1.4 minutes, and a better hook score than its own max setting. For the script I record I'd go up to Fable 5.2 at xhigh, and I'd keep Opus 4.8 at high for quick throwaway drafts.
Disclosure: both models come from the same lab as one of the four judges, Claude Opus 5.5. The other judges sit outside that lab, so neither is scored by its own lab alone (how the panel works). The judge analysis measures how much each judge favors its own lab.
How to Read the Writing Score, Writing Elo and 95% Ranges
Writing Score and Writing Elo. The Writing Score (0 to 100) is the weighted average of the nine metric scores: seven from the judges, Length Adherence from code and the Slop Score half from each. The Writing Elo is a rating from pairwise comparisons: on each script, each configuration's average across its drafts is compared with every other configuration's, and gaps within the draft-to-draft variation count as draws. Elo rewards winning often, so the two can put configurations in a different order.
Elo ranges. Each 95% range shows how far a configuration's Elo could move if the drafts had come out slightly differently. It comes from resampling every configuration's recorded draft scores on each reference script and ranking again. Comparing two separate ranges does not test the Elo gap between them: ranges far apart are strong evidence for the order, and overlapping ranges do not mean a tie. The reference scripts stay fixed, so the ranges say nothing about new scripts. The methodology page has the full description.
All Thinking Levels of Both Models
Every ranked configuration of Claude Fable 5.2 and Claude Opus 4.8, scored on the same 10 scripts by the same four judges.
- Each row is one configuration: the model at one thinking level. The dot is its Writing Elo, a rating from pairwise comparisons of the scores on each script, and the bar is its 95% range: how far that Elo could move if the drafts had come out slightly differently.
- Each bar describes one configuration. Overlap alone does not establish a tie or decide their order. Comparing these ranges does not directly test the difference between a pair.
- The table under the chart lists the same configurations in the same order and adds the Writing Score (the 0 to 100 consensus of the judges and code), cost, time and configuration rank (the place among all configurations on the board).
Shaded rows are the configurations chosen for the metric comparison below.
| Configuration | Writing Elo | 95% Range | Writing Score | Cost / Script | Time / Script | Configuration Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Fable 5.2 (xhigh) | 2673 | 2630 to 2717 | 85.6 | $2.22 | 7.4 min | #3 |
| Claude Fable 5.2 (max effort) | 2646 | 2599 to 2689 | 85.5 | $5.75 | 19.9 min | #4 |
| Claude Fable 5.2 (high) | 2511 | 2455 to 2555 | 84.8 | $1.22 | 4.0 min | #5 |
| Claude Fable 5.2 (medium) | 2422 | 2370 to 2469 | 84.3 | $0.561 | 1.8 min | #11 |
| Claude Fable 5.2 (low) | 2415 | 2370 to 2454 | 84.1 | $0.460 | 1.4 min | #12 |
| Claude Opus 4.8 (max effort) | 1926 | 1889 to 1958 | 80.7 | $1.23 | 9.8 min | #39 |
| Claude Opus 4.8 (high) | 1789 | 1749 to 1829 | 79.3 | $0.193 | 1.4 min | #59 |
Cost is one script at the API list price of the route used, uncached and without judging. Time is the average for one accepted script, retries included.
Computed Findings Across Thinking Levels
Each finding is computed from the configurations above. The 95% ranges describe individual configurations; overlap alone establishes neither a tie nor an order for a pair.
- Best Configurations Head to Head. Claude Fable 5.2 (xhigh) leads Claude Opus 4.8 (max effort) by 747 Elo, and their 95% ranges do not overlap (2630 to 2717 against 1889 to 1958), which is strong evidence for that order.
- Every Claude Fable 5.2 Configuration Ranks Higher. All five Claude Fable 5.2 configurations rank above both Claude Opus 4.8 configurations: the lowest-rated, Claude Fable 5.2 (low) at Elo 2415, still beats Claude Opus 4.8 (max effort) at Elo 1926. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Lowest Thinking Levels Head to Head. At their lowest thinking levels, Claude Fable 5.2 (low) at Elo 2415 and $0.460 per script leads Claude Opus 4.8 (high) at Elo 1789 and $0.193 per script by 626 Elo. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Same Level Name, Side by Side. Claude Fable 5.2 has the higher Writing Elo at every level name both models use: high and max. The 95% ranges do not overlap at any of them. Level names come from each provider, so the same name does not promise the same reasoning budget.
- Cheapest Claude Fable 5.2 Configuration Above Claude Opus 4.8's Best. The cheapest Claude Fable 5.2 configuration with a higher Writing Elo than Claude Opus 4.8 (max effort), at Elo 1926 and $1.23 per script, is Claude Fable 5.2 (low), at Elo 2415 and $0.460 per script. It costs less than the configuration it beats.
- Lowest to Highest Thinking Level. Claude Fable 5.2 moves +231 Elo from low to max effort, at about 13 times the cost per script. Claude Opus 4.8 moves +137 Elo from high to max effort, at about 6.4 times the cost per script.
Writing Elo at Each Shared Level Name
| Level | Claude Fable 5.2 | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gap | 95% Ranges |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| high | 2511 | 1789 | +722 | Separate |
| max | 2646 | 1926 | +720 | Separate |
Gap is Claude Fable 5.2 minus Claude Opus 4.8 at the same level name, using each model's highest-rated configuration at that level.
Two Chosen Configurations Compared
Pick one configuration of each model to compare their metric scores, consistency across drafts and per-script scores. Each menu starts on the model's best configuration.
Scores by Metric
Claude Fable 5.2 (xhigh) scores higher on all nine metrics. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Tone & Voice Match does the most to put Claude Fable 5.2 (xhigh) ahead, with a 5.1-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.
Consistency Across Drafts
| Claude Fable 5.2 (xhigh) | Claude Opus 4.8 (max effort) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.44 | 2.02 |
| Lowest script score | 83.6 Script 10 | 77.5 Script 4 |
| Highest script score | 88.0 Script 9 | 83.1 Script 6 |
| Range across scripts | 4.4 | 5.6 |
Spread is how much the Writing Score moves between a configuration's drafts, and lower is steadier. Green marks the better number in each row.
Scores by Script
Writing Score on each reference script. Gap is Claude Fable 5.2 (xhigh) minus Claude Opus 4.8 (max effort), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | Claude Fable 5.2 (xhigh) | Claude Opus 4.8 (max effort) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 83.7 | 80.2 | +3.5 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 85.4 | 80.6 | +4.8 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 85.5 | 79.3 | +6.2 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 85.4 | 77.5 | +7.9 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 86.1 | 80.3 | +5.8 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 85.9 | 83.1 | +2.8 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 87.3 | 82.5 | +4.8 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 85.1 | 82.5 | +2.6 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 88.0 | 82.0 | +6.0 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 83.6 | 78.9 | +4.7 |
Scorecards and Thinking Pages
Each configuration name in the table above opens its own scorecard.
Compare With Another Model
Pick a second model. A pair with its own written match-up opens that page, and any other pair opens in the comparison tool.
Nearby Match-Ups by Best Writing Elo
Every configuration wrote five drafts for each of the same 10 briefs, from the same prompt. Generation was closed-book, with the prompt as the only source and no web search or other tools. Each judge scores every draft once: Claude Opus 5.5 at medium effort through the Claude Code subscription, GPT-6.1 Sol at medium reasoning through the Codex CLI, GLM 5.3 Flash through OpenRouter, and Jev 1.13, a typed judge from TypeSafe that answers each metric as a multiple-choice question. The channel's finished script is their reference for the voice, and it gets no score on the board itself.
← All comparisons