[TLDR] The problem isn’t even that GPT5.6 is cheaper than Fable, it’s just straight up better. [via r/Anthropic]

OP : u/Gym_frere

Obviously from a usage/token point of view, Sol is better than Fable, but it’s also just straight up better. I asked Sol and Fable (both on High) to implement a feature that I needed to add to my app. Sol was able to plan and implement it end to end with no problems whatsoever. Asked Fable to do the same thing and its work was riddled with mistakes - I do use AI for coding but I am a software engineer so I personally audit every production from AI. To add insult to injury, I hit my usage limit not once, but TWICE with Fable while implementing this feature. Sol was able to do it with less than 40% usage.

So to recap, Fable was allegedly nerfed, it makes tonnes of mistakes, is way more expensive, and burns through tokens extremely quickly.

I think like over the last 3-12 months Anthropic was ahead of OpenAI but they’ve fallen behind now.

URL of original post : https://www.reddit.com/r/Anthropic/comments/1utrfkf/the_problem_isnt_even_that_gpt56_is_cheaper_than/

TL;DR of the discussion on r/Anthropic for this post generated automatically after 100 comments.

Current source-thread comment count seen by the bot: 156.

Alright, so the general vibe in this thread is a pretty split debate, with a lot of users weighing in on whether GPT-5.6 (Sol) is actually better than Claude's Fable model, especially for coding.

Here's the lowdown:

• OP's Take: The original poster (OP) is firmly in the "GPT-5.6 is better" camp, claiming it's not just cheaper but also more capable for coding tasks, with Fable making tons of mistakes and burning through tokens way too fast. They feel Anthropic has fallen behind OpenAI.
• Mixed User Experiences: This is where it gets messy.
  • Team GPT-5.6: A good chunk of users agree with the OP, reporting that GPT-5.6 handled their coding tasks better, was more accurate, and more efficient with tokens. Some specifically mention Fable struggling with basic calculations or making up bugs.
  • Team Fable: On the flip side, a significant number of users are sticking with Fable, saying it's still better for them, especially for planning, architecture, and general low-level programming. Some even find GPT-5.6 burns through usage surprisingly fast.
  • It Depends: Several comments highlight that the "better" model really depends on the specific workload. For instance, one user found Fable great for identifying ancient coins while GPT-5.6 struggled, and another found GPT better for UI/UX but Fable for execution and review.
• Concerns about Fable: Even some who prefer Fable acknowledge issues like it "talking to itself" or overcomplicating things. There's also a recurring sentiment that Fable might have been better before recent updates or "nerfs."
• Anthropic's Position (Implicit): No direct comments from Anthropic reps here, but the discussion implies they're facing tough competition and need to step up their game, especially on the consumer-facing side.
• General Sentiment: There's a bit of eye-rolling from some users about these "bot posts" that bash Anthropic after every release, suggesting a potential for astroturfing. Others are just tired of the constant "who's on top" debate and say people should just switch to what works best for them.

TL;DR: It's a toss-up! Some users swear GPT-5.6 is now the king of coding and efficiency, while others still find Fable superior for their specific needs. The consensus is that the "best" model is highly subjective and depends on your workflow.