Preface
Anthropic recently released two significant models within a month: Claude Opus 4.8 on May 28th and Claude Fable 5 on June 9th. As someone who uses AI to code and conduct research every day, I was among the first to experience these models.
In this article, I will compare the current mainstream AI models from three perspectives: benchmark data, actual usage experience, and cost-effectiveness, to help you find the one that suits you best.
Model Basic Information
Let’s start with a table to understand the basic parameters of these models:
| Model | Manufacturer | Release Date | Context Window | Pricing (per 1M tokens) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Fable 5 | Anthropic | 2026-06-09 | 1M | $8.20 |
| Claude Opus 4.8 | Anthropic | 2026-05-28 | 1M | $4.10 |
| Claude Opus 4.7 | Anthropic | 2026-04 | 1M | $4.10 |
| GPT-5.5 | OpenAI | 2026-05 | 922K | $4.35 |
| Gemini 3.1 Pro | 2026-05 | 1M | $1.74 | |
| Qwen3.7 Max | Alibaba | 2026-05 | 1M | $1.43 |
Key points:
- Both Claude Fable 5 and Opus 4.8 support a context of 1 million tokens, while GPT-5.5 supports 922,000 tokens.
- Claude is slightly cheaper than GPT-5.5 (4.35).
- The domestic model (Qwen3.7) costs only one-third of what Claude does.
Benchmark Score Comparison
I obtained the latest leaderboard data from Artificial Analysis (June 2026):
Intelligence Index Ranking (higher scores indicate better performance)
| Rank | Model | Intelligence Index | Speed (tokens/s) | First Token Delay (s) | Total Response Time (s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Fable 5 | 65 | 60 | 107.99 | 116.28 |
| 2 | Claude Opus 4.8 | 61 | 61 | 61.26 | 69.46 |
| 3 | GPT-5.5 (xhigh) | 60 | 50 | 94.25 | 104.30 |
| 4 | GPT-5.5 (high) | 59 | 49 | 31.12 | 41.31 |
| 5 | Claude Opus 4.7 | 57 | 45 | 23.25 | - |
| 5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | 57 | 112 | 22.34 | - |
| 5 | Qwen3.7 Max | 57 | 153 | 2.65 | - |
Interpretation:
- Claude Fable 5 is currently the strongest AI model, with an intelligence index of 65, 4 points higher than the second-ranked Opus 4.8. However, it is also twice as expensive (4.10) and has a higher latency (108 seconds for the first token).
- Claude Opus 4.8 offers the best cost-effectiveness, with an intelligence index of 61, only 4 points lower than Fable 5, but at half the price. Its latency is also much lower (61 seconds vs 108 seconds).
- GPT-5.5 and Opus 4.8 are close, with the xhigh version scoring 60 and the high version scoring 59. However, GPT-5.5 is slower (50 tokens/s vs 61 tokens/s).
- Domestic models have made significant progress; Qwen3.7 Max has an intelligence index of 57, on par with Opus 4.7, but its speed is three times faster (153 tokens/s) and the price is one-third of Claude’s.
Practical Usage Scenarios Comparison
Just looking at benchmarks is not enough; I conducted actual tests with these models.
Scenario 1: Coding
I asked each model to write a Python script to scrape the Douban Top 250 movies and save them as a CSV file.
| Model | Success Rate | Code Quality | Speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.8 | ✓ | 9/10 | Medium |
| Claude Fable 5 | ✓ | 9.5/10 | Slow |
| GPT-5.5 (high) | ✓ | 8.5/10 | Medium |
| Qwen3.7 Max | ✓ | 8/10 | Fast |
Conclusion: Claude performs better in coding; both Opus 4.8 and Fable 5 produce more standardized code with better error handling. GPT-5.5 is also good, but it occasionally has minor issues. Qwen3.7 is fast and suitable for quick prototyping.
Scenario 2: Long Document Analysis
I uploaded a 50-page PDF paper and asked the models to summarize its main points.
| Model | Accuracy | Summary Quality | Ability to Handle Over 100 Pages |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Fable 5 | 9.5/10 | 9.5/10 | ✓ |
| Claude Opus 4.8 | 9/10 | 9/10 | ✓ |
| GPT-5.5 | 8.5/10 | 8.5/10 | ✓ |
| Gemini 3.1 Pro | 8/10 | 8/10 | ✓ |
Conclusion: Claude excels at handling long documents, especially Fable 5, which captures the core logic of the paper well. GPT-5.5 is also good but may miss some details.
Scenario 3: Creative Writing
I asked the models to write a short essay on “AI and Future Education.”
| Model | Creativity | Writing Style | Logic | | |------|------|------|--------| | GPT-5.5 | 9/10 | 9.5/10 | 8.5/10 | | Claude Opus 4.8 | 8.5/10 | 8.5/10 | 9/10 | | Claude Fable 5 | 8.5/10 | 8.5/10 | 9.5/10 | | Qwen3.7 Max | 8/10 | 8/10 | 8.5/10 |
Conclusion: GPT-5.5 performs better in terms of creativity and writing style, producing more fluid and engaging articles. Claude focuses more on logic and depth.
Scenario 4: Multi-Round Conversations
I simulated a 10-round technical Q&A conversation to test the models’ memory and consistency.
| Model | Memory Accuracy | Consistency of Answers | Ability to Handle Complex Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Fable 5 | 9.5/10 | 9.5/10 | ✓ |
| Claude Opus 4.8 | 9/10 | 9/10 | ✓ |
| GPT-5.5 | 8.5/10 | 8.5/10 | ✓ |
| Qwen3.7 Max | 8/10 | 8/10 | Partial |
Conclusion: Claude performs best in multi-round conversations, maintaining a good memory of the previous context and consistent responses. GPT-5.5 occasionally forgets what was said earlier.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
This is a question many people are concerned about: For the same amount of money, which model offers the best value?
Calculated by Intelligence Index/Price
| Model | Intelligence Index | Price (per 1M tokens) | Intelligence/Price Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qwen3.7 Max | 57 | $1.43 | 39.9 |
| Gemini 3.1 Pro | 57 | $1.74 | 32.8 |
| Claude Opus 4.8 | 61 | $4.10 | 14.9 |
| GPT-5.5 (high) | 59 | $4.35 | 13.6 |
| Claude Fable 5 | 65 | $8.20 | 7.9 |
Conclusion:
- Best Value: Qwen3.7 Max, with the highest intelligence/price ratio.
- Strongest but Most Expensive: Claude Fable 5, suitable for scenarios requiring high quality.
- Best Balance: Claude Opus 4.8, strong performance at a moderate price.
My Recommendations
Based on different usage scenarios, my recommendations are:
Daily Coding and Tasks
Recommended Model: Claude Opus 4.8
- Reason: Strong coding skills, high success rate, reasonable price, sufficient context, and acceptable latency.
Complex Reasoning and Research
Recommended Model: Claude Fable 5
- Reason: Highest intelligence index, strong ability to handle long documents, and stable performance in multi-round conversations.
Disadvantages: Expensive ($8.20/1M tokens) and high latency, suitable for in-depth research without time constraints.
Creative Writing and Content Creation
Recommended Model: GPT-5.5
- Reason: Best writing style, more fluid articles, and strong creativity.
Limited Budget
Recommended Model: Qwen3.7 Max
- Reason: Lowest price (one-third of Claude’s), sufficient intelligence for daily use, fast speed (153 tokens/s), and sufficient context.
Summary
In the AI model market of 2026, Claude is indeed leading the way. Fable 5 is currently the strongest AI model, while Claude Opus 4.8 offers the best cost-effectiveness. GPT-5.5 still has an advantage in creativity, and domestic models are more competitive in terms of price and speed.
My daily setup is:
- Primary Model: Claude Opus 4.8 for coding, analysis, and conversations.
- For In-Depth Research: Claude Fable 5 for paper analysis and complex reasoning.
- For Creative Writing: GPT-5.5 for writing articles and brainstorming.
- For Quick Tasks: Qwen3.7 Max for simple questions and quick prototyping.
There is no best model; it all depends on your needs and budget.
Data Source: Artificial Analysis LLM Leaderboard (June 10, 2026) Evaluation Date: June 10, 2026