Claude Fable 5 vs DeepSeek R1 0528

Side-by-side benchmark comparison across coding, math, reasoning, speed, and pricing.

Claude Fable 5 by Anthropic wins on 4 of 7 benchmarks against DeepSeek R1 0528 by DeepSeek, which leads on 3. This head-to-head comparison covers coding, math, reasoning, speed, and pricing metrics from the AI Value Index.

Category-by-Category Breakdown

Coding: In coding, Claude Fable 5 scores 95.0% on SWE-bench Verified compared to DeepSeek R1 0528's 55.0%.

Reasoning: In reasoning, Claude Fable 5 scores 92.6% on GPQA Diamond compared to DeepSeek R1 0528's 81.0%.

Context: In context, Claude Fable 5 scores 1.0M on Context Length compared to DeepSeek R1 0528's 131K.

Pricing Comparison

Claude Fable 5 costs $10.0/1M input tokens and $50.0/1M output tokens, while DeepSeek R1 0528 costs $0.55/1M input and $2.2/1M output. DeepSeek R1 0528 is the more affordable option for API usage.

Speed Comparison

Claude Fable 5 generates output at 60 tok/s compared to DeepSeek R1 0528's 40 tok/s, and the time to first token is 81680 ms for Claude Fable 5 versus 900 ms for DeepSeek R1 0528. Claude Fable 5 delivers faster throughput.

Verdict

For developers prioritizing coding and speed, Claude Fable 5 has the edge. For those who value affordability, DeepSeek R1 0528 is the stronger choice.

Models:Claude Fable 5DeepSeek R1 0528

Chatbot Arena ELO(ELO)

Human preference ELO from blind head-to-head votes

Higher is better

1375

MMLU-Pro(%)

Massive Multitask Language Understanding professional benchmark

Higher is better

84.0%

HumanEval+(%)

Code generation correctness with extended tests

Higher is better

88.0%

IFEval(%)

Strict instruction following accuracy on verifiable constraints

Higher is better

88.0%

MATH(%)

Competition mathematics problem solving

Higher is better

96.0%

SWE-bench Verified(%)

Real-world software engineering task resolution

Higher is better

95.0%55.0%

GPQA Diamond(%)

Graduate-level science Q&A by domain experts

Higher is better

92.6%81.0%

Output Speed(tok/s)

Tokens generated per second

Higher is better

6040

Time to First Token(ms)

Latency before first token arrives

Lower is better

81680900

LiveCodeBench(%)

Live competitive programming benchmark

Higher is better

58.0%

Input Cost($/1M)

Cost per 1M input tokens

Lower is better

$10.0$0.55

Output Cost($/1M)

Cost per 1M output tokens

Lower is better

$50.0$2.2

GSM8K(%)

Grade school math word problems

Higher is better

97.5%

AIME 2025(%)

American Invitational Mathematics Examination — competition math

Higher is better

87.5%

ARC-AGI(%)

Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus for general intelligence

Higher is better

15.0%

Context Length(tokens)

Maximum context window size

Higher is better

1.0M131K

View Individual Model Pages

Claude Fable 5 Details DeepSeek R1 0528 Details

Claude Fable 5 vs DeepSeek R1 0528 — FAQ

Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or DeepSeek R1 0528?

Claude Fable 5 wins on more benchmarks overall (4 vs 3). However, the best choice depends on your specific needs — each model excels in different areas.

How does Claude Fable 5 compare to DeepSeek R1 0528 for coding?

Claude Fable 5 is better for coding, scoring 95.0% on SWE-bench Verified compared to 55.0%. SWE-bench tests real-world software engineering by resolving actual GitHub issues.

Is Claude Fable 5 cheaper than DeepSeek R1 0528?

Yes, DeepSeek R1 0528 is cheaper. Claude Fable 5 costs $10.0/1M input and $50.0/1M output tokens. DeepSeek R1 0528 costs $0.55/1M input and $2.2/1M output tokens.

Which is faster, Claude Fable 5 or DeepSeek R1 0528?

Claude Fable 5 is faster, generating output at 60 tok/s compared to 40 tok/s. Faster output speed means shorter wait times for API responses.

What benchmarks does the Claude Fable 5 vs DeepSeek R1 0528 comparison cover?

This comparison covers 7 benchmarks including SWE-bench Verified, GPQA Diamond, Output Speed, Time to First Token, Input Cost, Output Cost, Context Length. Metrics span general intelligence, coding, math, reasoning, speed, and cost categories.