UPDATED JULY 17, 2026
UPDATED JULY 17, 2026

The Frontier

Your signal. Your price.

Include
Lookback
||
  • · 1d ago

    Fable 5 dominates benchmarks: 78% on ExploitBench versus GPT55’s 34%, 66% on HealthBench versus GPT55’s 51.8%, 13.3% on the legal agent benchmark versus GPT55’s 2.1%, and 1932 on GDP Val’s knowledge work test versus Opus 48’s 1890.

    +3 more
    +2 more
  • · 1d ago

    The model excels at agentic coding: 80.3% on Swebench Pro versus GPT55’s 58.6%, 88% on Terminal Bench versus GPT55’s 83.4%, and 29.3% on Frontier Code versus Opus 48’s 13.4%. Fable scored 91% on Every’s Senior Engineer benchmark.

    +3 more
    +1 more
  • · 1d ago

    Artificial Analysis found Fable 5 topped its blended benchmark run, overtaking Opus 48 and GPT55, though some noted the overall gap was only five points.

    +3 more
    +3 more
  • · 1d ago

    API pricing for Fable 5 is $10 per million input tokens and $50 per million output tokens, double Opus’s cost but lower than some expected. Mythos preview within Project Glasswing costs more than double.

    +3 more
    +3 more
  • · 1d ago

    Fable 5 has strict guardrails, automatically routing queries about cybersecurity, biology, chemistry, or distillation to Opus 48. Anthropic says 95% of sessions don’t trigger a fallback but is 'hardcore' about biology/chemistry filters.

    +3 more
    +3 more
  • · 1d ago

    Users report Fable flags basic biology terms like 'mitochondria' and 'cancer' as biosecurity risks, switching to Opus 48. Creo, Daria Anupmas, and Fernando documented these blocks.

    +3 more
    +3 more
  • · 2d ago

    Hill argues frontier models like Anthropic's Opus 4.8 and OpenAI's unreleased Fable 5 are heavily subsidized, creating a dangerous dependency akin to a drug dealer giving cheap drugs.

    +3 more
    +4 more
  • · 2d ago

    Hill asserts benchmarks are misleading for AI model quality; real competence must be felt through hands-on use, especially in programming where Opus 4.8 leads and Fable 5 represented a major jump.

    +3 more
    +2 more
  • · 3d ago

    Gemini 3.5 Flash benchmarks show competent but not state-of-the-art performance against Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5, with its high token inefficiency making its speed focus questionable given the enterprise's primary cost concerns.

    +3 more
    +3 more
  • · 6d ago

    On the Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index, GPT-5.6 Sol was a close second to Fable 5 but completed the run at a third of Fable's cost and was 40% cheaper than Opus 4.

    +3 more
    +4 more
  • · 6d ago

    Nathaniel Whittemore reports Meta's Muse Spark 1.1 benchmarks show competitive performance with Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5, with strengths in personal agentic tasks and significant cost advantages.

    +3 more
    +5 more
  • · 6d ago

    Chubby notes Muse Spark 1.1 is incredibly affordable, costing $0.92 on VibeCodebench versus $5.09 for Opus 4.8 and $12.51 for Fable 5. Rayan from Vals.ai states it's one-tenth the cost of both Fable and GPT-5.5.

    +3 more
    +5 more
End of 7-day results — 12 results
12 results