🔍 Read the full analysis: How Much Does It Cost To Use Claude Fable 5.2 At Each Effort Level? on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on monitors, keyboards and dev gear
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
Artificial Analysis estimates that a Claude Fable 5.2 task on its Intelligence Index costs $3.10 at Low effort and $26.54 at Max, while reported scores rise from 54 to 65. High scored 62 for $9.08; Max scored 65 for $26.54 and took an average of 46.4 minutes per task. These are benchmark API-cost estimates, not fixed prices for every user request.
Claude Fable 5.2 costs an estimated $3.10 per benchmark task at Low effort and $26.54 at Max, according to Artificial Analysis data accessed November 10, 2026. The five-level comparison puts the model’s Intelligence Index score between 54 and 65, giving businesses a price-and-performance measure for the model Anthropic released on November 9.
Artificial Analysis tested Fable 5.2 on its Intelligence Index, which covers nine evaluations involving agentic coding, business documents, science and knowledge work. Its reported average cost per task rises from $3.10 at Low to $3.80 at Medium, $9.08 at High, $14.83 at Xhigh and $26.54 at Max. The corresponding displayed scores are 54, 56, 62, 62 and 65. Medium is the default effort level in Claude apps and Claude Code, according to the source material.
The figures describe average API costs for tasks in that benchmark, not a set fee for every prompt. Anthropic’s listed rates are the same across effort levels: $8 per million input tokens and $40 per million output tokens. The source attributes the different task bills to how many tokens the model uses while reasoning. Across the index, reported output-token use ranges from 34.9 million at Low to 275 million at Max.
The higher setting also takes longer in the benchmark: the average is 6.5 minutes at Low, compared with 46.4 minutes at Max. High scored 62 for $9.08, while Max scored 65 for $26.54. Artificial Analysis reports that High slightly outscored Max on its FrontierCode 2.0 agentic coding test, at 49.1% versus 48.8%, a reminder that the highest effort setting did not lead every individual result.
Claude Fable 5.2 costs by effort level
Artificial Analysis estimates benchmark task costs from $3.10 at Low to $26.54 at Max. These are test-specific API-cost estimates, not fixed prices for every request.
Five effort levels, five estimates
Benchmark task costs rise with effort, while displayed scores range from 54 to 65.
| Effort | Cost per task | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Low | $3.10 | 54 |
| Medium | $3.80 | 56 |
| High | $9.08 | 62 |
| Xhigh | $14.83 | 62 |
| Max | $26.54 | 65 |
What higher effort changes
The benchmark points to trade-offs in spend, score and waiting time—not a guaranteed advantage for every task.
- Score: 62
- Estimated task cost: $9.08
- Outscored Max on FrontierCode 2.0: 49.1% vs 48.8%
- Score: 65
- Estimated task cost: $26.54
- Average task time: 46.4 minutes
How to use the figures
Treat the benchmark as a starting point for business budgeting, then test representative work.
Compare Medium, High and other effort levels on tasks your team actually handles.
Measure cost per completed task, answer quality and elapsed time.
Standard token rates are the same across effort levels; optional fast mode has separate rates.
The Price of Higher Effort
For companies considering Fable 5.2, the comparison shows that choosing an effort level can change both the estimated cost and the time spent waiting for a result. On this test, moving from Medium to High adds six displayed score points and raises task cost from $3.80 to $9.08. Moving from High to Max adds three points but lifts the reported bill to $26.54 and average task time to 46.4 minutes.
That makes effort selection a practical budgeting decision, not just a model setting. A team running many tasks may care about the cumulative API bill; a user waiting for an answer may care about latency. The benchmark offers a reference point for comparing those trade-offs, but it does not establish that a higher effort setting will improve every real-world task or produce savings in a particular business workflow.
The source material also compares Fable 5.2 at High with Claude Opus 5.5 at Max: Artificial Analysis lists scores of 62 for $9.08 and 59 for $10.04, respectively. That comparison may interest buyers weighing Anthropic models, but it remains a result from one benchmark and should not be treated as a guarantee of performance on a company’s own work.
Popular right now
Samsung 43-Inch M70H Series 4K Mini LED Smart TV (2026)
KitchenAid Artisan Mini 3.5-Qt Tilt-Head Stand Mixer, Candy Apple Red
LG 77-Inch OLED evo C6 4K Smart TV
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Anthropic’s New Model Options
Anthropic announced Claude Fable 5.2 and Claude Mythos 5.2 on November 9, 2026, replacing their 5.1 versions, according to the supplied material. Anthropic says Fable is available to users with safeguards for high-risk cybersecurity and much research biology work. Mythos is described as the same underlying model without those safeguards, and access is limited to organizations accepted into Anthropic’s Cyber or Life Sciences Verification Programs. Those product and safety descriptions are Anthropic’s claims.
Anthropic says the new models generate answers up to 30% faster than their 5.1 versions and lists standard rates of $8 per million input tokens and $40 per million output tokens. The source also describes an optional fast mode, priced at $16 per million input tokens and $80 per million output tokens, which Anthropic says can generate tokens up to 2.5 times faster. The benchmark task-cost figures in this report are separate from these per-token rates.
Anthropic’s advice, as relayed in the source material, is to start with Claude Opus 5.5 for most coding and knowledge work and move to Fable when a task calls for it. Artificial Analysis ranked Fable 5.2 at Max first among 74 models on its Intelligence Index; the same model at Xhigh and High appeared next, with both levels shown at 62. The ranking and scores reflect the benchmark’s particular tests and settings.
“The models write their answers up to 30% faster than the 5.1 versions.”
— Anthropic, on the new models
Limits of the Cost Estimates
The reported costs are averages from Artificial Analysis’s Intelligence Index, not quotes for a particular customer’s prompts. Actual bills will depend on task, token use, product settings and whether standard or fast mode is used. The supplied material does not give a cost range across repeated runs or explain how representative each benchmark task is of routine business use.
The score values are rounded as displayed, and equal scores at High and Xhigh do not establish that the settings perform identically across every evaluation. The source also provides no evidence that benchmark rankings predict outcomes for an individual organization. Anthropic’s claims about safety behavior, speed and prerelease achievements are company statements; they are not independently verified by the benchmark figures described here.
The source says the analysis was drafted with help from Anthropic’s Claude, while stating that Anthropic and Artificial Analysis did not review or sponsor it. Readers should keep that disclosed involvement in mind alongside the attribution of each performance and product claim.
What Buyers Should Compare Next
Businesses evaluating Fable 5.2 can use the published figures as a starting point, then compare settings on representative tasks from their own workflows. Tracking cost per completed task, answer quality and elapsed time at Medium, High and other relevant levels would show whether the benchmark’s trade-offs carry over to their use case.
Further comparisons may clarify how Fable performs across different task types and repeated runs, and how its standard and fast modes affect practical costs. For now, the figures available in the source are Artificial Analysis’s November 10 benchmark results and Anthropic’s published pricing and product statements; no customer-specific cost outcome is established.
Key Questions
How much does Claude Fable 5.2 cost at each effort level?
Artificial Analysis estimates average benchmark task costs of $3.10 at Low, $3.80 at Medium, $9.08 at High, $14.83 at Xhigh and $26.54 at Max. These are test-specific API-cost estimates, not fixed prices for every request.
What does the benchmark score at each level?
The displayed Intelligence Index scores are 54 at Low, 56 at Medium, 62 at High, 62 at Xhigh and 65 at Max. Artificial Analysis tested nine evaluations; the figures do not guarantee results on other tasks.
Does every effort level have a different token price?
No. The source lists standard pricing of $8 per million input tokens and $40 per million output tokens across effort levels. It attributes different benchmark task costs to differences in token use. Anthropic’s optional fast mode is listed separately at $16 per million input tokens and $80 per million output tokens.
Is Max effort always the best choice?
Not based on the supplied results. Max earned the highest overall Intelligence Index score, but it cost more and took longer than lower settings. On Artificial Analysis’s FrontierCode 2.0 test, High scored 49.1% and Max scored 48.8%. The best setting for a particular task remains uncertain.
How long does a Fable 5.2 task take?
Artificial Analysis reports an average of 6.5 minutes at Low and 46.4 minutes at Max on its Intelligence Index. Those are benchmark averages, not a promised response time for every user task.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
