Model comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro
Anthropic against DeepSeek, compared on context, price, and attributed benchmark results.
Recorded profile verification October 1, 2026Individual provider fields may changeEvidence confidence: Medium — see receipts below
Anthropic
Claude Fable 5
Frontier
DeepSeek
DeepSeek V4 Pro
Frontier · Open weights
| Specification | Claude Fable 5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | ||
| Provider | Anthropic | DeepSeek |
| Tier | ||
| Tier | Frontier | Frontier |
| Context window | ||
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | ||
| Max output | 128K | Winner: 384K |
| Input / 1M tokens | ||
| Input / 1M tokens | $10 | Winner: $1.32 |
| Output / 1M tokens | ||
| Output / 1M tokens | $50 | Winner: $3.96 |
| Weights | ||
| Weights | Closed | Open |
| Parameters | ||
| Parameters | Not verifiedUnverified | 1.6T total / 49B active (MoE) |
| Reasoning levels | ||
| Reasoning levels | low, medium, high, xhigh, max | low, high, max |
| Modalities | ||
| Modalities | text, image | text |
| License | ||
| License | Not verifiedUnverified | MIT |
| API model id | ||
| API model id | claude-fable-5 | deepseek-v4-pro |
| Released | ||
| Released | June 9, 2026 | April 24, 2026 |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index [max] · source date DeepSeek V4 Pro: 2026-10-01 | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index [max] · source date DeepSeek V4 Pro: 2026-10-01 | Not verifiedUnverified | 36 |
| SWE-bench Verified [max] · source date DeepSeek V4 Pro: 2026-04-24 | ||
| SWE-bench Verified [max] · source date DeepSeek V4 Pro: 2026-04-24 | Not verifiedUnverified | 80.6 |
| GPQA Diamond [max] · source date DeepSeek V4 Pro: 2026-04-24 | ||
| GPQA Diamond [max] · source date DeepSeek V4 Pro: 2026-04-24 | Not verifiedUnverified | 90.1 |
| Humanity's Last Exam [max] · source date DeepSeek V4 Pro: 2026-04-24 | ||
| Humanity's Last Exam [max] · source date DeepSeek V4 Pro: 2026-04-24 | Not verifiedUnverified | 48.2 |
| Humanity's Last Exam · source date DeepSeek V4 Pro: 2026-08-13 | ||
| Humanity's Last Exam · source date DeepSeek V4 Pro: 2026-08-13 | Not verifiedUnverified | 42.7 |
| Humanity's Last Exam · source date DeepSeek V4 Pro: 2026-08-13 | ||
| Humanity's Last Exam · source date DeepSeek V4 Pro: 2026-08-13 | Not verifiedUnverified | 60 |
| MMLU-Pro [max] · source date DeepSeek V4 Pro: 2026-04-24 | ||
| MMLU-Pro [max] · source date DeepSeek V4 Pro: 2026-04-24 | Not verifiedUnverified | 87.5 |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 · source date DeepSeek V4 Pro: 2026-08-13 | ||
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 · source date DeepSeek V4 Pro: 2026-08-13 | Not verifiedUnverified | 87.9 |
| DeepSWE 1.1 · source date DeepSeek V4 Pro: 2026-08-13 | ||
| DeepSWE 1.1 · source date DeepSeek V4 Pro: 2026-08-13 | Not verifiedUnverified | 62.7 |
Dates beside benchmark scores refer to the linked source’s publication or capture date unless that source explicitly states when it measured the result. A shared URL alone does not establish comparable runs; unverified setups are marked. Prices are USD per million tokens at standard rates, excluding batch and caching discounts. Values we could not confirm from the provider are shown as “Not verified” rather than estimated.
Benchmark receipts
Where each score comes from, and how far it can be compared across models.
- Source date2026-10-01Artificial Analysis (DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max))
Composite index blending reasoning, knowledge, and coding evals into one 0–100 score.
Comparable with caveatOnly same-version scores are comparable. v4.3.2 was rebaselined (the top score fell from 66 on v4.1.1 to ~58), so v4.1.1 figures must not be compared with v4.3.2 figures — check the cited source and its date.
- Source date2026-08-13DeepSeek August 13 GA changelog (vendor) (0813 GA refresh; vendor report, exact run configuration unverified)
Agentic software engineering: pass@1 on real repo tasks with reported cost per completed task.
Directly comparable
- Source date2026-08-13DeepSeek August 13 GA changelog (vendor) (0813 GA refresh; vendor report, exact run configuration unverified)
Agentic terminal work: multi-step tasks executed in a sandboxed shell environment.
Comparable with caveatNot comparable with Terminal-Bench 3.0 or 4.0 (different task sets) or v1; harness configuration (container, time limits) also shifts results.
- Source date2026-08-13DeepSeek August 13 GA changelog (vendor) (0813 GA refresh; with tools; vendor report, exact run configuration unverified)
Frontier-knowledge ceiling: extremely hard multi-domain questions written to be near-impossible without deep expertise.
Comparable with caveatSubset/tool configurations (text-only vs with-tools) differ between vendors and materially change scores; must match configuration to compare.
- Source date2026-08-13DeepSeek August 13 GA changelog (vendor) (0813 GA refresh; without tools; vendor report, exact run configuration unverified)
Frontier-knowledge ceiling: extremely hard multi-domain questions written to be near-impossible without deep expertise.
Comparable with caveatSubset/tool configurations (text-only vs with-tools) differ between vendors and materially change scores; must match configuration to compare.
- Source date2026-04-24DeepSeek V4 Pro HF model card (vendor, Think Max, exact match) (Original April 24 checkpoint; historical vendor evaluation, not the served 0813 refresh)
Broad knowledge across 14 domains with harder, reasoning-focused multiple-choice questions.
Comparable with caveatFrontier models cluster in the high 80s–90s; near-ceiling differences are weak evidence. CoT vs direct answering must match.
- Source date2026-04-24DeepSeek V4 Pro HF model card (vendor, Think Max, with tools; 37.7 no tools) (Original April 24 checkpoint; historical vendor evaluation, not the served 0813 refresh)
Frontier-knowledge ceiling: extremely hard multi-domain questions written to be near-impossible without deep expertise.
Comparable with caveatSubset/tool configurations (text-only vs with-tools) differ between vendors and materially change scores; must match configuration to compare.
- Source date2026-04-24DeepSeek V4 Pro HF model card (vendor, Think Max, pass@1) (Original April 24 checkpoint; historical vendor evaluation, not the served 0813 refresh)
Graduate-level science reasoning: multiple-choice questions written by domain PhDs.
Comparable with caveatDo not treat a fixed two-point band as universal measurement uncertainty; it depends on run count and evaluation setup. Chain-of-thought, prompt, and tool policy must match. The small pool limits fine-grained conclusions, and frontier scores can be near ceiling; Artificial Analysis dropped it from its Intelligence Index in v4.3.
- Source date2026-04-24DeepSeek original V4 Pro HF card (vendor, Think Max; verifier/harness comparability unverified) (Original April 24 checkpoint; historical vendor evaluation, not the served 0813 refresh)
Real GitHub issue resolution: does the model's patch pass the hidden tests.
Comparable with caveatPost-audit vendor claims and pre-audit scores sit on different task trust levels; scaffolding (agent harness, compute budget) also dominates results. Never aggregate across scaffolds.
Pricing tiers
Claude Fable 5: Standard $10/$50 per MTok with no long-context surcharge. Cache reads $1; 5-minute writes $12.50 and 1-hour writes $20. Batch $5/$25. US-only inference adds 10% where supported. Adaptive thinking is always on, default effort high. Reliable knowledge cutoff Jan 2026; retirement not sooner than June 9, 2027. Access was suspended June 12 and restored July 1, 2026.
DeepSeek V4 Pro: Official peak rates $1.32/$3.96 per MTok; off-peak $0.66/$1.98 (cache-miss). Cache hit $0.044 peak / $0.022 off-peak. Peak hours are weekdays 01:00–04:00 and 06:00–10:00 UTC, excluding Chinese public holidays; weekends, holidays and all other hours are off-peak. Open weights (MIT). 1.6T/49B active MoE.
Claude Fable 5
Claude Fable 5 is Anthropic's June 2026 long-running-agent model, now 'Active (legacy)' behind Fable 5.1 at the same $10/$50 price.
Best for
- Long-running agents
- Frontier reasoning
- Enterprise work
Watch out
Superseded: Fable 5.1 has the same base input/output prices and lower cache-read pricing ($0.25 vs $1 per million tokens). Savings depend on eligible cached requests; evaluate the successor against your pinned workloads.
DeepSeek V4 Pro
DeepSeek V4 Pro is DeepSeek's large open-weight (MIT) MoE with a 1M-token context — DeepSeek says the cheaper V4.1-Flash now beats it.
Best for
- Cost-sensitive hosted agents
- Open-weight deployments
- High-volume coding
Watch out
The current tariff identifies DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813. DeepSeek's current changelog reverses the earlier September 14 re-route plan and says it will continue serving V4 Pro at unchanged rates until further notice. Original April benchmark/checkpoint results are not the current 0813 evaluation. Self-hosting memory depends on quantization, offloading and hardware.
When the cheaper one wins
DeepSeek V4 Pro is cheaper on output at $3.96 per million tokens against $50 for Claude Fable 5 — about 13×. Use the cheaper tier for classification, extraction, summarisation, and any task where the expensive model’s extra score does not change the accepted output. The expensive one only pays if your hardest task actually fails on the cheap tier. On DeepSWE 1.1, DeepSeek V4 Pro is 62.8% Pass@1 at $0.24/task versus Claude Fable 5 at 69.9% / $13.41/task. This compares standard short-context token rates, not total cost per accepted task. Include input, cache, context tiers, schedules, retries and review in your pilot.
Run the model pickerEvidence confidence: Medium
How strong and complete the evidence behind this comparison is — not a prediction of which model is better.
- Pricing verified on both sides — Input and output rates are verified for both models.
- 4/5 core specs verified on both sides — Not published for at least one side: parameter count.
- No directly aligned benchmark setup — No benchmark has matching cited sources, source dates, units, effort and recorded run details on both models.
- Verified within the last 90 days — Older of the two catalog checks was 25 days ago.
- Both models carry source citations — Each side has at least two catalog sources on record.
Source receipts
Each catalog figure was checked against the provider or an independent second source on the date shown.
- Claude Fable 5: Claude model overview — whole-profile source check October 1 (accessed 2026-10-01)
- Claude Fable 5: Claude current API pricing, caching and inference geography (accessed 2026-10-01)
- Claude Fable 5: Anthropic — Claude Fable 5 (accessed 2026-08-29)
- Claude Fable 5: Anthropic news — Claude Fable 5 (accessed 2026-08-29)
- Claude Fable 5: Anthropic — model deprecations (Fable 5 Active (legacy)) (accessed 2026-09-26)
- Claude Fable 5: Anthropic selectable effort levels (separate from adaptive thinking mode) (accessed 2026-10-01)
- DeepSeek V4 Pro: Whole-profile primary source check October 1 (accessed 2026-10-01)
- DeepSeek V4 Pro: Whole-profile primary source check October 1 (accessed 2026-10-01)
- DeepSeek V4 Pro: DeepSeek current API version, holiday tariff and 0813 GA benchmark publication (accessed 2026-10-01)
- DeepSeek V4 Pro: DeepSeek current tariff and served endpoint versions (accessed 2026-10-01)
- DeepSeek V4 Pro: DeepSeek — V4 news (accessed 2026-08-29)
- DeepSeek V4 Pro: DeepSeek API pricing (accessed 2026-08-29)
- DeepSeek V4 Pro: DeepSeek — V4.1-Flash release (V4-Pro phase-out) (accessed 2026-09-26)
- DeepSeek V4 Pro: DeepSeek API changelog (accessed 2026-09-26)
Related comparisons
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro
- Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Fable 5.1
- Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Haiku 4.5
- Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Mythos 5.1
- Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Opus 5
- Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Opus 5.5
Diving deeper on one model? Claude Fable 5 · DeepSeek V4 Pro
Common questions
Claude Fable 5 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro
Answered from the verified figures on this page rather than general guidance.
Is Claude Fable 5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro cheaper for input?
Is Claude Fable 5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro cheaper for output?
Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro?
Do Claude Fable 5 and DeepSeek V4 Pro support the same reasoning levels?
Should I use Claude Fable 5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro?
Can I self-host Claude Fable 5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro?
Next step
Choosing between them
The verified figures that separate this pair, computed from the catalog rather than restated boilerplate.
- Input price: DeepSeek V4 Pro costs $1.32 per 1M tokens versus $10 for Claude Fable 5 — a 7.6x difference at the headline tier.
- Deployment: DeepSeek V4 Pro publishes weights you can self-host; the other is API-only.
Choosing a harness rather than a model — Cursor, Copilot, Claude Code, Windsurf, or Lovable? Compare agentic harnesses · Latest releases.