Claude Fable 5.2 (Low, Default Fallback) vs Inkling (Xhigh)
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5.2 (Low, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or Inkling (Xhigh) by Thinking Machines? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-11-10.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Fable 5.2 (Low, Default Fallback) scores 41.4 points higher (53.9 vs 12.5) but costs 2.3× as much to run the benchmark ($2862 vs $1237; flagship vs premium cost classes). Pick Claude Fable 5.2 (Low, Default Fallback) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Inkling (Xhigh).
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.2 (Low, Default Fallback) | Inkling (Xhigh) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 53.9 | 12.5 | −76.8% Inkling (Xhigh) is 76.8% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,861.78 | $1,236.66 | −56.8% Inkling (Xhigh) is 56.8% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 24.94s | 16.18s | −35.1% Inkling (Xhigh) is 35.1% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $8.00 / $40.0 | $1.00 / $4.05 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Speech |
Inkling (Xhigh) vs Claude Fable 5.2 (Low, Default Fallback): 76.8% less intelligence, 56.8% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 35.1% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Fable 5.2 (Low, Default Fallback) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 54.60 for $1124.
- Inkling (Xhigh) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 54.60 for $1124.
Claude Fable 5.2 (Low, Default Fallback)Inkling (Xhigh)Today's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-2-low/inkling · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-2-low/inkling?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill