Model Comparison
Claude Fable 5.2 vs GPT-5.6 Terra
Claude Fable 5.2 (xhigh) leads GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra) by 680 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 593 Elo apart. Even Claude Fable 5.2's lowest-rated configuration, Claude Fable 5.2 (low), ranks above GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra). Among 87 models, each ranked by its best configuration, Claude Fable 5.2 is #2 and GPT-5.6 Terra is #16. Cost per script: $2.22 for Claude Fable 5.2 (xhigh) and $0.275 for GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra).
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) for the script that has to sound right, 518 Elo above Terra's best at $1.22 a script and 4.0 minutes.
PickGPT-5.6 Terra
GPT-5.6 Terra (medium)
Pick GPT-5.6 Terra (medium) for cheap first drafts at $0.062 a script and 1.4 minutes, under a quarter of what ultra costs.
The thinking ladders pay very differently on this page. On Claude Fable 5.2, going from low to xhigh adds 258 Elo for about 4.8 times the cost, the step from high to xhigh alone adds 162 with 95% ranges that don't overlap, and max effort then gives back 27. On GPT-5.6 Terra, going from medium to ultra adds 71 Elo for about 4.4 times the cost, and the two ranges overlap. The ranking itself isn't close. Fable 5.2 is the #2 model of 87 and GPT-5.6 Terra the #16 model, each ranked by its best configuration: Claude Fable 5.2 (xhigh) sits 680 Elo above GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra), and Claude Fable 5.2 (high) sits 518 Elo above it, for $1.22 against $0.275 and in half the time, 4.0 minutes against 8.0. Even Fable at low, $0.460 and 1.4 minutes, clears Terra's best by 422. Terra comes closest on hooks, where medium sits 0.6 points behind Fable at high, and on substance, where ultra sits 1.1 behind. Its medium setting also scores higher on tone than ultra does, and costs $0.062 for 1.4 minutes. For the script that matters I'd run Fable 5.2, at high most days and xhigh for the one I record, and Terra at medium for cheap first drafts.
Disclosure: Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-5.6 Terra each come from the same lab as one of the judges (Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-6.1 Sol). 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 GPT-5.6 Terra, 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 |
| GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra) | 1993 | 1952 to 2037 | 81.4 | $0.275 | 8.0 min | #32 |
| GPT-5.6 Terra (medium) | 1922 | 1879 to 1957 | 80.7 | $0.062 | 1.4 min | #40 |
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 GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra) by 680 Elo, and their 95% ranges do not overlap (2630 to 2717 against 1952 to 2037), 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 GPT-5.6 Terra configurations: the lowest-rated, Claude Fable 5.2 (low) at Elo 2415, still beats GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra) at Elo 1993. 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 GPT-5.6 Terra (medium) at Elo 1922 and $0.062 per script by 493 Elo. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Same Level Name, Side by Side. At medium, the one level name both models use, Claude Fable 5.2 has the higher Writing Elo: 2422 against 1922. Their 95% ranges do not overlap there. Level names come from each provider, so the same name does not promise the same reasoning budget.
- Cheapest Claude Fable 5.2 Configuration Above GPT-5.6 Terra's Best. The cheapest Claude Fable 5.2 configuration with a higher Writing Elo than GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra), at Elo 1993 and $0.275 per script, is Claude Fable 5.2 (low), at Elo 2415 and $0.460 per script. It costs about 1.7 times as much per script.
- 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. GPT-5.6 Terra moves +71 Elo from medium to ultra, at about 4.4 times the cost per script.
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 4.9-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) | GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.44 | 1.38 |
| Lowest script score | 83.6 Script 10 | 79.8 Script 4 |
| Highest script score | 88.0 Script 9 | 83.0 Script 6 |
| Range across scripts | 4.4 | 3.2 |
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 GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | Claude Fable 5.2 (xhigh) | GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 83.7 | 81.1 | +2.6 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 85.4 | 82.1 | +3.3 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 85.5 | 82.5 | +3.0 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 85.4 | 79.8 | +5.6 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 86.1 | 82.2 | +3.9 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 85.9 | 83.0 | +2.9 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 87.3 | 80.6 | +6.7 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 85.1 | 80.3 | +4.8 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 88.0 | 81.8 | +6.2 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 83.6 | 80.6 | +3.0 |
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