ClaudeHowSupport Us

Opus 5 vs Fable 5

Input / MTok$5 vs $10
Output / MTok$25 vs $50
Context window1,000K vs 1,000K
Min cacheable prefix512 vs 512 tokens
Effort levelslow, medium, high, xhigh, max vs low, medium, high, xhigh, max

The top of the lineup, and what separates its two tiers

Fable 5 sits above Opus 5 in both price and positioning, with thinking that runs on every request and cannot be turned off at all, versus Opus 5's default-on-but-adjustable behaviour. For most workloads that would consider either, Opus 5's lower price and more flexible thinking control make it the more practical default, with Fable 5 reserved for the narrower set of tasks that genuinely need the highest ceiling available.

The constraint that decides it before price even enters the picture

Before weighing cost, check data-retention requirements: Fable 5 requires a retention window incompatible with a zero-data-retention organisational policy, while Opus 5 has no such restriction. For an organisation under that policy, this isn't a cost-versus-quality trade at all — Fable 5 simply isn't an eligible option regardless of how the rest of the comparison looks.

When the extra cost is actually justified

Reach for Fable 5 specifically when a task has already been tried against Opus 5 and fallen short in a way that matters — not as a default first choice for anything that merely sounds important. The price gap between them is real enough that it should be earned by a demonstrated need, not assumed from a task's perceived seriousness alone.

See Fable 5 is unavailable to zero-data-retention organisations for exactly how that constraint applies, and the model picker for a recommendation that accounts for it automatically.

Verified 2026-08-08 against ClaudeHow facts module (src/data/facts/) — see /about/#accuracy.