Claude Fable 5 vs Composer 2.5
Claude Fable 5 was superseded by Claude Fable 5.1. The grades below are the last ones measured, so read them as history rather than as this week's board. See the current roster.
Claude Fable 5 leads overall, C to D. Composer 2.5 is about 7.9x cheaper per task. By suite, real-world issues is even at C- and Claude Fable 5 takes spec planning (C to D). Take Composer 2.5 anyway when you want the side that is cheaper per task and faster on real-world issues.Measured
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.
Verdict: Composer 2.5 vs Claude Fable 5
Claude Fable 5 leads overall, C to D. By suite: real-world issues is even at C- (60% vs 57% capability); Claude Fable 5 takes spec planning, C to D (63% vs 48% capability); Claude Fable 5 takes vibe coding, C+ to F (74% vs 23% capability). Claude Fable 5 used 7% of Claude Max 20x's weekly limit per pass, $0.169 per task at the listed price; at the ~$100 tier the board defaults to that is an estimated ~14% of Claude Max 5x's weekly limit (est, about $0.169 per task). Composer 2.5 used 2.0% of Cursor Pro's monthly limit per pass, $0.021 per task at the listed price. Per task, Composer 2.5 is about 7.9x cheaper ($0.021 vs $0.169). Composer 2.5 is faster on real-world issues: a median task takes 1m 34s against 2m 37s. Both finished every task on it. Reasons to pick Composer 2.5 anyway: it is cheaper per task ($0.021 vs $0.169) and it is faster on real-world issues (1m 34s vs 2m 37s median).
Changed since the previous graded week: Claude Fable 5: real-world issues C+ to C-, vibe coding C to C+; Composer 2.5: real-world issues D+ to C-.
| Dimension | Claude Fable 5 | Composer 2.5 | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 60% | 57% | +3% (Claude Fable 5 leads) |
| Median task time | 2m 37s | 1m 34s | 1m 2s faster (Composer 2.5 leads) |
| Approx. task cost | $0.153 / task | $0.021 / task | $0.132 / task lower (Composer 2.5 leads) |
Claude Fable 5: 33.0% of Claude Max 20x (33.0% / 5h, 5.0% / 1w) per run. Its weekly limit holds about 7 of the week's 33.6 5h windows. Composer 2.5: 1.6% of Cursor Pro (1.6% / 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 5 443 vs Composer 2.5 63 suite runs per month (Claude Fable 5 leads); per plan-dollar: 2.21 vs 3.15 (Composer 2.5 leads). Work figures compare outputs, so unlike quota shares they are comparable across plans.
| Dimension | Claude Fable 5 | Composer 2.5 | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 63% | 48% | +15% (Claude Fable 5 leads) |
| Median task time | 5m 32s | 1m 8s | 4m 24s faster (Composer 2.5 leads) |
| Approx. task cost | $0.230 / task | $0.022 / task | $0.208 / task lower (Composer 2.5 leads) |
Claude Fable 5: 10.0% of Claude Max 20x (10.0% / 5h, 2.0% / 1w) per run. Its weekly limit holds about 7 of the week's 33.6 5h windows. Composer 2.5: 0.4% of Cursor Pro (0.4% / 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 1461 vs Composer 2.5 225 suite runs per month (Claude Fable 5 leads); per plan-dollar: 7.30 vs 11.23 (Composer 2.5 leads). Work figures compare outputs, so unlike quota shares they are comparable across plans.
| Dimension | Claude Fable 5 | Composer 2.5 | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 74% | 23% | +52% (Claude Fable 5 leads) |
| Median task time | 5m 28s | 1m 37s | 3m 52s faster (Composer 2.5 leads) |
| Approx. task cost | $0.184 / task | $0.022 / task | $0.162 / task lower (Composer 2.5 leads) |
Claude Fable 5: 2.8% of Claude Max 20x (2.8% / 5h, 0.4% / 1w) per good solve. Its weekly limit holds about 7 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 5218 vs Composer 2.5 920 good solves per month (Claude Fable 5 leads); per plan-dollar: 26.09 vs 46.02 (Composer 2.5 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 or Composer 2.5?
Claude Fable 5 clears higher: tier 4 of 5 versus tier 1 for Composer 2.5 on real-world@v3, our private suite of real-world coding problems. Latest measurement 2026-08-30.
Which is cheaper per task, Claude Fable 5 or Composer 2.5?
Claude Fable 5 used 7% of Claude Max 20x's weekly limit per pass, $0.169 per task at the listed price; at the ~$100 tier the board defaults to that is an estimated ~14% of Claude Max 5x's weekly limit (est, about $0.169 per task). Composer 2.5 used 2.0% of Cursor Pro's monthly limit per pass, $0.021 per task at the listed price. Per task, Composer 2.5 is about 7.9x cheaper ($0.021 vs $0.169).
Which gives more coding work per dollar, Claude Fable 5 or Composer 2.5?
Composer 2.5 delivers more benchmark work per subscription dollar: 3.15 suite runs per plan-dollar versus 2.21 for Claude Fable 5 (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.
What do Claude Fable 5 and Composer 2.5 cost a month?
Claude Fable 5 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).