Skip to content
trending

Benchmarks

Claude Fable 5.2 vs GPT-6.1 Sol vs Gemini 4 Argon: Price, Benchmarks

Fable 5.2 costs four times as much as GPT-6.1 Sol per token. What the vendors' own numbers say.

By 4 min read
Claude Fable 5.2 vs GPT-6.1 Sol vs Gemini 4 Argon: Price, Benchmarks

👁 113 reads

Updated: 9 November 2026

Claude Fable 5.2 launched on 9 November 2026 as Anthropic’s strongest generally available model, and the obvious question is how it stacks up against the two models many developers actually use every day: OpenAI’s GPT-6.1 Sol and Google’s Gemini 4 Argon. There is a catch: the three companies do not publish results on the same set of benchmarks, and Anthropic’s own launch table compares Fable 5.2 with GPT-6 Astra and Gemini 4 Carbon, not with Sol or Argon. So below I separate what each vendor says, where the numbers come from, and what you pay. Every benchmark figure is labelled with its source.

Prices: Fable 5.2 vs GPT-6.1 Sol vs Gemini 4 Argon

Model Input / 1M tokens Output / 1M tokens Cached input / 1M Source
Claude Fable 5.2 $8 $40 $0.20 Anthropic pricing docs
GPT-6.1 Sol (up to 272K input) $2 $10 $0.10 OpenAI API pricing
GPT-6.1 Sol (over 272K input) $4 $15 $0.20 OpenAI API pricing
Gemini 4 Argon (until 30 Nov 2026) $2 $10 $0.10 Google AI Studio pricing
Gemini 4 Argon (from 1 Dec 2026) $4 $20 $0.20 Google AI Studio pricing

Per token, Fable 5.2 is four times the price of GPT-6.1 Sol and of Gemini 4 Argon at its introductory rate, and twice Argon’s price from December. Fable 5.2 has no long-context surcharge across its 1M-token window, while GPT-6.1 Sol charges more above 272,000 input tokens.

Benchmarks, vendor by vendor

The only benchmarks where I found published numbers for both Fable 5.2 and Gemini 4 Argon come from two different vendors: Anthropic reports Fable 5.2, and Google reported Argon in the evaluation table it published with Gemini 4 Carbon on 28 October 2026. Different harnesses can shift results by a few points; Google’s figure for Opus 5.5 on Chartography, for example, is 66.3% while Anthropic reports 64.4%. Read the table as a rough guide, not a head-to-head test.

Benchmark Claude Fable 5.2 (Anthropic) Gemini 4 Argon (Google) GPT-6.1 Sol
FrontierSWE v2 (coding) 69.9% 55.0% not published on this benchmark
OSWorld 2.1 (computer use) 89.3% 74.7% (offline variant) not published on this version
AutomationBench (business workflows) 51.4% 51.3% no number found
Chartography 73.4% 71.6% no number found
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 74.6% 52.9% no number found

OpenAI presented GPT-6.1 Sol on 29 September 2026 with results on other benchmark versions (for example DeepSWE 1.1 and OSWorld 2.0), so I am not putting its numbers next to Fable’s. What the table does show: on coding and science tasks Fable 5.2 is far ahead of Argon, while on business automation and chart reading the two are within two points of each other, with Argon costing a quarter of the price per token until the end of November.

Independent index

Artificial Analysis, which runs the same test set on every model, had GPT-6.1 Sol at 51.8 points and Gemini 4 Argon at 52.6 points on its Intelligence Index v5.0 in late October 2026, with Claude Opus 5.5 at 57.6. A full run of the index cost $0.72 with Sol, $1.62 with Argon and $5.98 with Opus 5.5. Fable 5.2 had no published score on launch evening, so this only tells you how far Sol and Argon sit below Anthropic’s previous top model.

My test: Fable 5.2 vs Opus 5.5, GPT-6.1 Sol and Gemini 4 Argon

On launch evening I ran the same 27 tasks through all four models via OpenRouter (medium effort): coding with 136 unit tests, 13 logic puzzles, 10 questions about 3 images and 3 writing tasks. The writing tasks were in Polish, because the test was built for my Polish site. Mythos 5.2 was not available to test.

  • All four models scored 100% on code, puzzles and vision, so this set did not separate them.
  • Speed: a 500-word essay took Fable 5.2 a median 19.1 s against 26.2 s for Fable 5.1, 27% less time, in line with Anthropic’s “up to 30% faster”.
  • Cost of the 27 tasks: Fable 5.2 $0.75, Opus 5.5 $0.52, Gemini 4 Argon $0.14, GPT-6.1 Sol $0.11.
  • Fable 5.2 costs twice as much per token as Opus 5.5, but only 1.44 times as much per task, because it used fewer tokens (16,434 vs 23,839).
  • Median time to first token: Fable 5.2 2.24 s, Opus 5.5 2.65 s, GPT-6.1 Sol 1.48 s, Gemini 4 Argon 3.44 s.

Full results and raw data (in Polish): Claude Fable 5.2 test on promptowy.com.

Which one to choose

GPT-6.1 Sol and Gemini 4 Argon are the value picks: a fraction of Fable’s price and, on the independent index, within a few points of each other. Fable 5.2 is the model to pay for when the task is long, agentic and hard to get right: large code changes, multi-step research, science workloads and computer-use automation, where Anthropic’s numbers show the biggest lead. If you are deciding between Fable 5.2 and Anthropic’s own cheaper model, read my Claude Fable 5.2 vs Opus 5.5 comparison; prices and access are in the Claude Fable 5.2 guide.

FAQ

Is Claude Fable 5.2 better than GPT-6.1 Sol?

There is no common vendor benchmark to settle it. Anthropic compares Fable 5.2 with GPT-6 Astra, OpenAI’s flagship, and reports Fable ahead on most tests. GPT-6.1 Sol costs a quarter of Fable’s price per token.

Is Claude Fable 5.2 better than Gemini 4 Argon?

On coding and science benchmarks, Anthropic’s figures for Fable 5.2 are well above Google’s figures for Argon (69.9% vs 55.0% on FrontierSWE v2). On AutomationBench they are almost equal.

Which is cheapest: Fable 5.2, GPT-6.1 Sol or Gemini 4 Argon?

GPT-6.1 Sol and Gemini 4 Argon both cost $2 / $10 per million tokens until 30 November 2026; Argon rises to $4 / $20 on 1 December. Fable 5.2 costs $8 / $40.

Kinetyra

// read next

More on this from QUANTSLANT

Piotr Olszewski

Editor and publisher · Quantslant

I edit and publish Quantslant. AI tools help with research, drafts and translation; choosing topics, running the tests, checking facts and the decision to publish are mine, and so is the responsibility for what appears here.

read nextClaude Mythos 5.2: What It Is and Who Can Use ItguidesClaude Mythos 5.2: What It Is and Who Can Use ItClaude Mythos 5.2 is Fable 5.2 without the safety classifiers, and only vetted teams can use it.

Most read

  1. 1Best AI Video Generator Apps for Your Phone (2026)
  2. 2Claude Opus 5.5 Motion Graphics: 60s Showreel from One Prompt
  3. 3Wan 2.2 on RTX 4090: timings, VRAM and four test clips
// site map
Quantslant in numbers 1,427posts in archive26news from the last 7 days18video models in the observatory
🎬 AI Video Benchmarks: Higgsfield DoP vs OpenAI Sora • Higgsfield vs Runway Gen-3 • AI Video Credit Calculator
× ‹ enlarge ›