Claude Fable 5.2 (Max, Default Fallback) vs Beam 1.0
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5.2 (Max, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or Beam 1.0 by Reflection? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-11-09.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Fable 5.2 (Max, Default Fallback) scores 46.9 points higher (64.6 vs 17.7) but costs 89× as much to run the benchmark ($22191 vs $250; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Fable 5.2 (Max, Default Fallback) when you need intelligence above 17.7, and Beam 1.0 when 17.7 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.2 (Max, Default Fallback) | Beam 1.0 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 64.6 | 17.7 | −72.6% Beam 1.0 is 72.6% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $22,191.42 | $249.83 | −98.9% Beam 1.0 is 98.9% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | Not reported | 7.01s | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $8.00 / $40.0 | $0.40 / $1.20 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Beam 1.0 vs Claude Fable 5.2 (Max, Default Fallback): 72.6% less intelligence, 98.9% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and end-to-end time not fully reported.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Fable 5.2 (Max, Default Fallback) is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
- Beam 1.0 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Terra (Medium) scores 38.20 for $190.
Claude Fable 5.2 (Max, Default Fallback)Beam 1.0Today'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/reflection-beam · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-2/reflection-beam?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill