Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) vs Beam 1.0
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) by Anthropic or Beam 1.0 by Reflection? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) scores 19.3 points higher (49.6 vs 30.3) but costs 35× as much to run the benchmark ($11161 vs $319; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) when you need intelligence above 30.3, and Beam 1.0 when 30.3 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Beam 1.0 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 49.6 | 30.3 | −38.9% Beam 1.0 is 38.9% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $11,160.86 | $318.73 | −97.1% Beam 1.0 is 97.1% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 71.92s | 8.02s | −88.8% Beam 1.0 is 88.8% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $10.0 / $50.0 | $0.40 / $1.20 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Beam 1.0 vs Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback): 38.9% less intelligence, 97.1% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 88.8% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback) scores 57.60 for $8708.
- Beam 1.0 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 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/reflection-beam · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5/reflection-beam?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill