Model Comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs GPT-5.6 Luna
Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) leads GPT-5.6 Luna (ultra) by 427 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 328 Elo apart. Even Claude Fable 5's lowest-rated configuration, Claude Fable 5 (high), ranks above GPT-5.6 Luna (ultra). Among 78 models, each ranked by its best configuration, Claude Fable 5 is #6 and GPT-5.6 Luna is #24. Cost per script: $3.20 for Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) and $0.026 for GPT-5.6 Luna (ultra).
Last updated , from board data generated at 01:13 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickClaude Fable 5
Claude Fable 5 (high)
Pick Claude Fable 5 (high) when the voice has to come from the model, at $1.34 a script and close to eight points ahead of Luna at ultra on Tone & Voice Match.
PickGPT-5.6 Luna
GPT-5.6 Luna (ultra)
Pick GPT-5.6 Luna (ultra) for cheap first drafts at $0.026 a script, with a hook score about three points above Fable at high.
If the voice has to come from the model, I'd pay for Claude Fable 5, and it's a lot more money. Claude Fable 5 (high) costs $1.34 and GPT-5.6 Luna (ultra) $0.026, so Fable is about 52 times the price. That buys a 344 Elo lead with ranges far apart. Ranked by best setting, Fable is the #6 model of 78 and Luna the #24 model. The lead comes from voice and structure: close to eight points on Tone & Voice Match and more than six on YouTube Best Practices. Luna answers with the better hook, by about three points, and at ultra it matches Fable's top setting on substance. Thinking does much more for Luna than for Fable. GPT-5.6 Luna (medium) sits 203 Elo below ultra and lands far from the requested length, so ultra is the only Luna setting I'd run. Fable's max effort setting adds 83 Elo inside overlapping ranges for more than twice the cost, and I'd only pay that on a script that deserves it. I'd use Fable at high for what I read on camera and Luna at ultra for cheap drafts I'll rewrite.
Disclosure: Claude Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Luna 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 and GPT-5.6 Luna, 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.
- When two bars overlap, the board cannot order those two configurations. Bars far apart are strong evidence for the order.
- 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 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) | 2239 | 2186 to 2298 | 82.9 | $3.20 | 12.5 min | #12 |
| Claude Fable 5 (high) | 2156 | 2102 to 2204 | 81.9 | $1.34 | 4.9 min | #22 |
| GPT-5.6 Luna (ultra) | 1812 | 1768 to 1858 | 78.8 | $0.026 | 3.1 min | #49 |
| GPT-5.6 Luna (medium) | 1609 | 1572 to 1647 | 76.7 | $0.0065 | 0.5 min | #66 |
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. Where two 95% ranges overlap, the board cannot order those two configurations.
- Best Configurations Head to Head. Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) leads GPT-5.6 Luna (ultra) by 427 Elo, and their 95% ranges do not overlap (2186 to 2298 against 1768 to 1858), which is strong evidence for that order.
- Every Claude Fable 5 Configuration Ranks Higher. Both Claude Fable 5 configurations rank above both GPT-5.6 Luna configurations: the lowest-rated, Claude Fable 5 (high) at Elo 2156, still beats GPT-5.6 Luna (ultra) at Elo 1812. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Lowest Thinking Levels Head to Head. At their lowest thinking levels, Claude Fable 5 (high) at Elo 2156 and $1.34 per script leads GPT-5.6 Luna (medium) at Elo 1609 and $0.0065 per script by 547 Elo. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Cheapest Configuration Overlapping the Top One. Claude Fable 5 (high), at $1.34 per script, is the cheapest configuration whose 95% range overlaps that of Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback), at $3.20 per script: 2102 to 2204 against 2186 to 2298, so the board cannot separate them. Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) costs about 2.4 times as much per script.
- Cheapest Claude Fable 5 Configuration Above GPT-5.6 Luna's Best. The cheapest Claude Fable 5 configuration with a higher Writing Elo than GPT-5.6 Luna (ultra), at Elo 1812 and $0.026 per script, is Claude Fable 5 (high), at Elo 2156 and $1.34 per script. It costs about 52 times as much per script.
- Lowest to Highest Thinking Level. Claude Fable 5 moves +83 Elo from high to max effort, at about 2.4 times the cost per script. GPT-5.6 Luna moves +203 Elo from medium to ultra, at about 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 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) scores higher on eight of the nine metrics and GPT-5.6 Luna (ultra) on one. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Tone & Voice Match does the most to put Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) ahead, with a 8.7-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.
Consistency Across Drafts
| Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) | GPT-5.6 Luna (ultra) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.96 | 2.07 |
| Lowest script score | 81.2 Script 8 | 76.0 Script 7 |
| Highest script score | 86.4 Script 7 | 80.8 Script 9 |
| Range across scripts | 5.2 | 4.8 |
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 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) minus GPT-5.6 Luna (ultra), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) | GPT-5.6 Luna (ultra) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 83.1 | 78.5 | +4.6 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 83.7 | 80.3 | +3.4 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 81.6 | 79.7 | +1.9 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 81.6 | 77.4 | +4.2 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 82.5 | 79.7 | +2.8 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 82.9 | 80.6 | +2.3 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 86.4 | 76.0 | +10.4 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 81.2 | 78.4 | +2.8 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 83.2 | 80.8 | +2.4 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 82.8 | 76.9 | +5.9 |
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