Grok 4.7 vs Claude Fable 5
Too close to call on our weighted score (Grok 4.7 61, Claude Fable 5 61). The right pick depends on what you value most.
xAIGrok 4.7
61/100- ECI—
- Price$2.00 / $6.00
- Context500K
AnthropicClaude Fable 5
61/100- ECI162.2
- Price$10.00 / $50.00
- Context1M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Grok 4.7 61/100, Claude Fable 5 61/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Claude Fable 5 for raw capability and Grok 4.7 on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%. Capability uses the average of shared benchmarks (GPQA Diamond, FrontierMath Tiers 1–3, OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 and SimpleQA Verified), because Grok 4.7 has no Capabilities Index score yet.
- CapabilityClaude Fable 5Shared benchmarks: Claude Fable 5 85.9% · Grok 4.7 74.9%
- Lowest priceGrok 4.7Grok 4.7 $3.00 · Claude Fable 5 $20.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextClaude Fable 5Claude Fable 5 1,000,000 · Grok 4.7 500,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsGrok 4.7: Text, Images, PDFs · Claude Fable 5: Text, Images, PDFs
- Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
| Measure | Weight | Grok 4.7 | Claude Fable 5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityShared benchmarks | 50% | 75 | 86 |
| Price | 25% | 27 | 0 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 80 | 80 |
| Context window | 10% | 48 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 61/100 | 61/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Grok 4.7xAI | Claude Fable 5Anthropic |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | 162.2 |
| ECI rank | — | #7 of 148 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 92.7% (best) | 85.9% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | 53.0% | 87.0% (best) |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 98.1% | 100% (best) |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | 56.0% | 70.7% (best) |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $2.00 (best) | $10.00 |
| Output | $6.00 (best) | $50.00 |
| Cached input | $0.50 (best) | $1.00 |
| Blended (3:1) | $3.00 (best) | $20.00 |
| Long-context rate | Over 200K: $4.00 / $12.00 | Same rate |
| Price source | Official xAI API | Official Anthropic API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 500,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 500,000 tokens (best) | 128,000 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | Yes | Yes |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · medium · high · xhigh | Yeslow · medium · high · xhigh · max |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | grok-4.7 | claude-fable-5 |
| API providers | 17 | 38 (best) |
| Released | Sep 21, 2026 | Jun 9, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | May 2026 | Jan 31, 2026 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Grok 4.7$32.00
- Claude Fable 5$200.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Grok 4.7 or Claude Fable 5?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Grok 4.7 61/100, Claude Fable 5 61/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Claude Fable 5 for raw capability and Grok 4.7 on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%. Capability uses the average of shared benchmarks (GPQA Diamond, FrontierMath Tiers 1–3, OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 and SimpleQA Verified), because Grok 4.7 has no Capabilities Index score yet.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.7 or Claude Fable 5?
Grok 4.7 is cheaper at $2.00 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (official xAI API price). Claude Fable 5 costs $10.00 input / $50.00 output per million tokens (official Anthropic API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $3.00 per million tokens for Grok 4.7 versus $20.00 for Claude Fable 5 (6.7× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Not every model here has a Capabilities Index score, so we compare the average of shared benchmarks (GPQA Diamond, FrontierMath Tiers 1–3, OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 and SimpleQA Verified): Claude Fable 5 85.9% and Grok 4.7 74.9%. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Grok 4.7 92.7%, Claude Fable 5 85.9%; FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 — Claude Fable 5 87.0%, Grok 4.7 53.0%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Claude Fable 5 100%, Grok 4.7 98.1%; SimpleQA Verified — Claude Fable 5 70.7%, Grok 4.7 56.0%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Grok 4.7 and Claude Fable 5 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Claude Fable 5 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Fable 5 has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 500,000 for Grok 4.7. Maximum output per response: Grok 4.7 up to 500,000, Claude Fable 5 up to 128,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Grok 4.7 accepts text, images and PDFs; Claude Fable 5 accepts text, images and PDFs. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
No. Grok 4.7 and Claude Fable 5 are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.
Which is newer?
Grok 4.7 is the newest, released Sep 21, 2026. Claude Fable 5 came out Jun 9, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Grok 4.7 May 2026, Claude Fable 5 Jan 31, 2026.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
