Claude Fable 5.1 vs Composer 2.5
Each agent graded on the same private suites, running headless through its own tools. Advantages are oriented so a win is a win, whichever way the metric runs.
| Dimension | Claude Fable 5.1 | Composer 2.5 | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 73% | 57% | +17% (Claude Fable 5.1 leads) |
| Median task time | 1m 46s | 1m 49s | 3s faster (Claude Fable 5.1 leads) |
| Approx. task cost | $0.026 / task | $0.024 / task | $0.002 / task lower (Composer 2.5 leads) |
Claude Fable 5.1: 28.0% of Claude Max 20x (28.0% / 5h, 5.0% / 1w) per run. Its weekly limit holds about 7.2 of the week's 33.6 5h windows. Composer 2.5: 1.8% of Cursor Pro (1.8% / 1m) per run. Each figure is a share of that agent's own plan, so there is no delta to draw.
Work per window: Claude Fable 5.1 522 vs Composer 2.5 56 suite runs per month (Claude Fable 5.1 leads); per plan-dollar: 2.61 vs 2.78 (Composer 2.5 leads). Work figures compare outputs, so unlike quota shares they are comparable across plans.
| Dimension | Claude Fable 5.1 | Composer 2.5 | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 74% | 49% | +25% (Claude Fable 5.1 leads) |
| Median task time | 6m 51s | 1m 49s | 5m 2s faster (Composer 2.5 leads) |
| Approx. task cost | $0.051 / task | $0.023 / task | $0.029 / task lower (Composer 2.5 leads) |
Claude Fable 5.1: 15.0% of Claude Max 20x (15.0% / 5h, 2.0% / 1w) per run. Its weekly limit holds about 7.2 of the week's 33.6 5h windows. Composer 2.5: 0.5% of Cursor Pro (0.5% / 1m) per run. Each figure is a share of that agent's own plan, so there is no delta to draw.
Work per window: Claude Fable 5.1 974 vs Composer 2.5 221 suite runs per month (Claude Fable 5.1 leads); per plan-dollar: 4.87 vs 11.04 (Composer 2.5 leads). Work figures compare outputs, so unlike quota shares they are comparable across plans.
| Dimension | Claude Fable 5.1 | Composer 2.5 | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 85% | 35% | +50% (Claude Fable 5.1 leads) |
| Median task time | 3m 48s | 2m 13s | 1m 35s faster (Composer 2.5 leads) |
| Approx. task cost | $0.025 / task | $0.028 / task | $0.004 / task lower (Claude Fable 5.1 leads) |
Claude Fable 5.1: 1.8% of Claude Max 20x (1.8% / 5h, 0.2% / 1w) per good solve. Its weekly limit holds about 7.2 of the week's 33.6 5h windows. Composer 2.5: 0.1% of Cursor Pro (0.1% / 1m) per good solve. Each figure is a share of that agent's own plan, so there is no delta to draw.
Work per window: Claude Fable 5.1 8117 vs Composer 2.5 702 good solves per month (Claude Fable 5.1 leads); per plan-dollar: 40.58 vs 35.12 (Claude Fable 5.1 leads). Work figures compare outputs, so unlike quota shares they are comparable across plans.
Grades and deltas are comparable only within a suite version. See methodology.
Frequently asked questions
Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5.1 or Composer 2.5?
Claude Fable 5.1 clears higher: tier 4 of 5 versus tier 2 for Composer 2.5 on real-world@v3, our private suite of real-world coding problems. Latest measurement 2026-09-01.
Which gives more work per dollar, Claude Fable 5.1 or Composer 2.5?
Composer 2.5 delivers more benchmark work per subscription dollar: 2.78 suite runs per plan-dollar versus 2.61 for Claude Fable 5.1 (at $20/month priced 2026-07-20, and $200/month priced 2026-08-05). Work figures compare outputs, so unlike raw quota shares they are comparable across plans.
How much do Claude Fable 5.1 and Composer 2.5 cost?
Claude Fable 5.1 runs on Claude Max 20x at $200/month (public price as of 2026-08-05). Composer 2.5 runs on Cursor Pro at $20/month (public price as of 2026-07-20).