I Tested Claude Fable 5.2 vs Opus 5.5 (WILD RESULTS)

0:00 So Anthropic just released Fable 5.2 and as always, everyone is hyping it up, acting like it's a complete game changer. And with Opus 5.5 already being an almost flawless model, I wanted to

0:12 answer one simple question in this video. Is Fable 5.2 actually worth paying double for? So I gave both of these models the exact same prompts across three different tests, which are

0:24 building a full website, building a hyper realistic 3D game, and editing one of my actual short form videos. And after each test, I'm going to break down exactly how much each run costs so you

0:36 know exactly how these models really stack up to each other without the hype. So without further ado, let's dive right into the video. So the way that this works is pretty simple. Every single

0:45 test gets a brand new session and the exact same prompt. Both models are set on the default effort setting, which is medium, because that's probably what most of us are going to be using. I'm

0:56 also not helping either one of these models along the way. I'm just giving it one prompt and whatever comes out is what we get. And after each test, I'm going to show you a scorecard with how

1:06 long each model took and how much that run cost. So this way we're not just comparing the quality, but we're also going to be comparing the price, which is a really important thing here. All

1:15 right, so the first test is a website and I made this one really hard on purpose. So I basically asked both models to build the launch website for a made up electrical bike company called

1:26 Volta. Basically, I wanted the kind of website that a brand would pay an agency thousands of dollars for. So in order to give you more of an example of how complex this prompt is, it has to draw

1:36 the bike itself completely in code because I didn't give it a single image to work with. And as you scroll down the page, the bike has to come apart with all of its parts and then go back

1:46 together. So as you can see right here, this is the prompt and you can see that I'm pasting the exact same thing into both Opus 5.5 and then into Fable 5.2, both on medium effort level. All right,

1:58 that took a while, but both of them finished. And I personally have not looked at either of these different tests yet, so we're going to be looking at this at the exact same time that I

2:06 do. All right, so here is the output from Opus 5.5. I'm going to go through this very quickly kind of just break down my honest thoughts on how I think that this looks so you can get a sense.

2:16 So I pull this up, Volta. It shows the city rewired um which it actually looks like the bike is covering a bit of this text. I don't know if I necessarily like this. I don't know if Opus 5.5 did this

2:27 deliberately or if this is kind of an error. But then we have this bike uh looking like it's spinning and actually shows the miles per hour based on how I'm moving the mouse apparently, which

2:37 is interesting. It's kind of interactive. So we got some text behind here that looks pretty cool. Um if I drag my mouse like this, it speeds up the bike and kind of moves in a little

2:47 bit, which is cool. We also have some text coming across the screen here that um stops and starts as I move my mouse. And then we could see we have this text as well. This is all stuff that I

2:57 instructed in the prompt as well as I could go light mode, dark mode. I think dark mode actually looks pretty solid. We actually have this bike kind of illuminating with the headlights there.

3:07 So this looks pretty cool. Let me go back into light mode um take it apart. So if I scroll here, it actually takes apart the different pieces of the bike. I think this is a really good touch. I'm

3:18 interested to see how this compares to the Fable 5.2 version. Um obviously if I scroll through this faster, it's going to deconstruct and take apart this bike a little bit more. But I think that this

3:28 looks pretty solid. And again, this is all written in code. I didn't actually take a video or image model um in order to generate this bike. So obviously we could do that, but I wanted to see what

3:38 Fable and Opus could do just themselves. Now this is where we build our bike, it looks like. So I could change the frame color. I could change the frame size and all this stuff. And I believe if I

3:49 scroll up, it's going to change the color of the the bike. So this configuration's going to show throughout this website. Like this looks really good. I honestly super surprised with

3:58 how this looks. I 'm interested to see obviously the cost breakdown on this. And then we could add like all season tires, studded winter tires. So I scroll back up to the studded. Um you could see

4:08 these are the studded all season tires now that are added. Um pretty cool. I can then add this to cart. It's going to then take me to this checkout page which looks pretty solid. Just basically has

4:18 that same bike configuration that we had along with the pricing. Could continue to shipping. So this looks good. I'm not going to go through this checkout obviously. Um but I just wanted to show

4:27 an example. And then looks like we actually have this test ride um section as well. So we could pick a city, uh New York. We could basically see uh when we could go ahead and test ride our bike. I

4:40 think that this site looks really solid. I have no complaints with it aside from probably the um hero section right here where the bike is in front of the text. I just am not a huge fan of that. But

4:51 yeah, this is the output from Opus 5.5. Now moving on to Fable 5.2. This is the output and I'm just going to refresh this website so you could see this animation. So it shows this little

5:01 charge icon because it is an electric bike. We have Volta in the background. It's in a similar theme. And if I go over to the dark mode, again we get the similar effects where if I scroll um the

5:12 bike moves along with my mouse as well as we have this headlight here from our bike. I think that this looks pretty solid. The city shortened. Uh we have basically a breakdown of the statistics

5:21 here. We have the same text coming across the screen as well as when I scroll this text populates as well. And then here's the take it apart section. So if I scroll, it again shows me each

5:31 individually section of the bike that I can configure. So it shows the frame right here. It shows basically like this braking system. And it also shows a display. Interesting. And it goes back

5:43 together. So I think that there's not a huge difference in terms of the output quality here if I'm being completely honest. We have the build your own section again. If I make changes to

5:52 this, we should see this populated um again right in the hero section with like our actual configuration of this bike which looks pretty cool. Maybe I turn this to green or I think red looks

6:02 super super clean right there. But yeah, if I keep scrolling, I could obviously like add these changes to our bike. Um and it's going to populate up here again. It also shows a breakdown on I

6:14 believe just like how far and how many miles this goes on a single charge since it is an electric bike, which is cool. Um I don't believe our other site for Opus 5.5 generated anything to kind of

6:26 show an output like that. It also shows um the amount of savings that we get for our or for our bike as well, which is pretty cool. It's a nice touch. Um and I like the typography. I like how big the

6:37 logo is and all of this stuff. And then let's go ahead and click on the checkout section to see what this looks like. Um shows basically all of the additional things that we selected throughout our

6:47 website. Now I think that this looks really good. Uh if I come over to the dark mode, we can take a look at this as well to just kind of get a sense of what this looks like. Um I think this looks

6:57 really solid, but I don't really see a huge difference in the quality compared to Opus 5.5 in my opinion. I'm curious to hear what you guys think in the comments below. Let me know your

7:06 thoughts. Comparing these websites sometimes feels like I'm a broken record cuz they kind of all do look the same. The real question here is now going to be the cost breakdown. Is there going to

7:16 be a big discrepancy in the cost to where it makes much more sense to use Opus 5.5? So let's break that down now. All right, so that is the website. Now on paper, Fable 5.2 costs exactly double

7:28 what Opus 5.5 costs, but the bill for each task doesn't always come out to double the price because the two models don't use the same amount of work in order to finish the job. So for the

7:39 website, Opus cost $11.66 and took about 34 minutes. And Fable 5.2 costed $13.25 and actually finished faster in about 26 minutes, which is pretty interesting

7:53 actually. So for this initial test, Fable only cost at about 14% more than Opus. All right, so now we have a website that I'm genuinely happy with, but the problem right now is that this

8:04 lives only on my computer and nobody else can actually see this. And that is where today's sponsor, Hostinger, comes in. They just released something called the Hostinger connector, which basically

8:14 lets Claude code put your website live on the internet without you ever having to leave Claude code. So if you want to do this yourself, the first thing you're going to need is a Hostinger plan. I'm

8:23 going to come over to hostinger.com/brock and then the plan that I'm going to pick is the unlimited plan. Right now, Hostinger is running their Black Friday

8:32 sale, so the unlimited plan is already 85% off. Then I'm going to put in my code that they gave us called Brock right here at checkout. And as you can see, this takes off an extra 10% on top

8:44 of the Black Friday price. I think this is honestly one of the cheapest ways to take something that you built with AI and put it on a real domain because you just pay one monthly price with no usage

8:54 fees on top of that. Now, once you have your plan, the plugin itself is completely free and it's really easy to install. I literally just asked Claude code to install the Hostinger plugin for

9:04 me and it installed the official plugin directory in just a few seconds. The first time you use it, it just asks you to sign into your Hostinger account in your browser and that's it. There's no

9:14 API keys or configuration files that you have to mess with, which if you're non-technical is super easy. So now I'm just going to come into my chat and basically just type in deploy this site

9:24 to Hostinger. You can see that before it goes and does anything, it tells me its plan step by step and waits for me to say okay. So that way nothing happens to my account without me ever seeing it

9:35 first. Now I'm going to go ahead and approve that and now it's setting up the entire website for me as well as the SSL certificate, which is basically what makes your site secure. And just like

9:44 that, the website that we built inside of Fable 5.2 is now actually live on the internet and I could go and share this with my friends or basically anybody. Now one thing I do want to point out is

9:55 that this isn't just for putting a site live. Basically anything inside of your Hostinger account, so your domains, your email, and even your billing, Claude code can manage for you from one chat.

10:05 You also get a free domain and a business email for the first year. They include free SSL and protection against attacks by default. And on top of that, it will even open security updates for

10:16 your site on GitHub for you, so you could just review them and merge them. So if you guys do want to use Hostinger, make sure to use the code Brock at checkout in order to get an extra 10%

10:25 off on top of the Black Friday sale that they're still running. Now moving on to the second test, and this is the one that I'm personally most excited about. I wanted to see if either of these

10:35 models could build a game that actually looks real like a developer built it. So I asked both of them to build a hyper realistic 3D adventure game that runs right inside of your browser. Bear with

10:46 me for like 20 seconds here while I explain the instructions I gave it. So this way we could have necessary context before reviewing the game and and how good it was at following these

10:55 instructions. So basically, you play as an explorer who reaches a lost temple deep inside of a jungle canyon right as the sun is going down. You have to find three golden relics and open the temple

11:07 door before it gets dark. I asked for a waterfall, a rope bridge that breaks right after you cross it, a dark tunnel where only your torch lights the way, and the light slowly fading as you play.

11:18 Now one thing I do want to point out is that I asked it to play through the entire game itself before it finished and to take screenshots and keep improving them until the game looked

11:27 like a real game. So this way it's checking its own work instead of just handing me the first thing that it builds. And I genuinely think this is where we see the difference between

11:35 these different models. So I'm just going to paste in this prompt right here, and we're going to use the exact same prompt for both models and let it go into its thing. All right, so these

11:44 took a long time to finish. And once again, I haven't opened up either of these yet. So let's go ahead and see how these stack up to each other in real time right now. So here is the output of

11:53 the game. I'm really excited to test this one out cuz I think this is going to be the most complex test that we're going to show in the video cuz this really does require a lot of power. This

12:02 ran for a long time. We're going to break down the output quality and then after that obviously show the cost breakdown as well so you can understand which should I be using if I want to

12:11 build games and is there a huge difference in the price and the output quality. So next or first up right here I could actually select the quality. Um it says Lost Son

12:21 game. I'm going to turn off the sound effects cuz it's going to mess up with the recording, but we could have sound effects here if we would like. I'm going to click on begin expedition and as you

12:30 can see this is pretty cool. It shows like this cinematic view as it's starting up this like POV game. So Lost Son Valley of the Ninth Dusk. Um it's taking us through kind of the

12:41 layout of our world that we're inside of. This is pretty cool taking us through the jungle and now we have our character and I need to figure out how to walk around in this world, but let's

12:52 figure this out. Again this is my first time trying it. So looks like I could walk around um and I just use my mouse in order to basically walk around this world and then I could

13:02 run if I click the shift button which I mean our character looks odd. As you could see like the back of his jacket is all weird. Um the physics of the character don't really look that good

13:14 especially when he runs. Uh the world looks kind of cool like it's got these leaves, it's got these textures on the rock. Um that's pretty cool and then we have this bridge. So let me walk across

13:25 this and if you do remember in the prompt I said when I go over the bridge I wanted to then fall apart behind me. So let's see if it actually does this. I'm going to walk across this bridge.

13:34 All right so I'm walking. Um it actually looks like the bridge did not fall apart behind me which so it didn't follow that instructions. Uh I mean the sun peeking through the trees that looks pretty

13:45 cool. Yeah anyways I think that this is overall pretty solid. Like the fact that AI can do this is pretty crazy, but I'm not like blown away by the output here. Um I'm very curious to see what the cost

13:55 is going to be on this and then I'm very curious to see how good Fable 5.2 is going to be. So now here is the output from Fable 5.2. I'm really interested to see this output. I'm going to click on

14:05 begin expedition. It's showing this cinematic scene like it did before kind of this intro to our game which really adds to this static here. Um it's going through this kind of like valley with

14:15 this water. Oh, this looks super good, actually. I'm I'm surprised by this one so far. Oh, okay. We have a little torch here with our character. Our character looks completely different than the

14:25 other one. Uh, I think the flame looks really good. And honestly, overall, I think the graphics of this look really good. And I think the like physics of the character actually walking around

14:34 look a lot better, too. So, let me try running. Oh yeah, running looks much better than the previous one. I think obviously right off the bat, this is a big upgrade from what we just saw with

14:45 the Opus 5.5 output, which I didn't think there'd be this big of a difference to be completely honest. Oh, and that's cool. When we walk across our little bridge here, my character does

14:53 this little animation kind of where he um confidently is trying to balance. Oh, here we go. And okay, it shows the bridge breaking and shows this little cinematic shot. Man, this feels like I'm

15:03 playing an actual video game. Uh, this is this is really good. I'm I'm very very surprised by this. Super curious to see the cost output and the breakdown of if it's going to be much more expensive

15:14 than Opus, which I would assume based on just how much better this looks. So, let me go up here real quickly and then just like grab this relic to see how this goes. Looks like I just come here and

15:24 click E. Okay, and now I have this cool little relic here. Yeah, guys, I'm pretty like impressed by this output. Let me know in the comments which one you think is better. I think it's pretty

15:35 obvious at this point. But yeah, here is the breakdown of the gameplay. Very short simulation of it. Let's go ahead and now break down the cost and how long each of these different models took to

15:44 build this 3D interactive game. All right, so now for the cost on this one, which is very surprising. Opus costed $22.65 and took about 56 minutes. And Fable

15:56 cost $22.52 and took about 47 minutes. And this one honestly really surprises me because I personally think the output from Fable 5.2 is much better, and I would probably

16:08 assume you would think the same. And the fact that it did it about 13 cents cheaper and about 9 minutes faster is pretty interesting. I think this goes to show that even if a model is cheaper or

16:19 whatever the case may be, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's always consistent. Think real-life tests like this really matter because it's not as simple as just a model being cheaper

16:28 than the other on paper. All right, so this next test I want to show is one that's right inside of my wheelhouse for a use case that I use AI for every single day. I wanted to see if either of

16:38 these models can actually edit a video for me. To give you guys a little bit of context, pretty much every short-form video that I've been posting over the last two months is edited entirely by

16:48 Claude. I've been using Opus 5.5 to do this and it's been extremely capable. So the question is whether or not Fable 5.2 has a noticeable difference in terms of the output quality compared to the

16:59 price. Now I will say that it did take me a long time to build out a system that gets this looking exactly how I wanted to inside of Opus 5.5. So for this test, I'm not going to use any of

17:09 that. I'm going to treat both of these models like a freelance editor that I just hired and I'm just going to give them the exact same brief that I would give to a person if I was looking to

17:18 hire a new editor. So what I'm going to do is come over to this folder right here and you can see that there are a few things inside of it. So first of all, we have the raw recordings, which

17:29 are basically just me sitting in front of the camera and reading a script for about a minute and a half. And I will say I did mess up quite a bit throughout this raw recording. For example, there's

17:38 one specific line where I had to restart four or five times in a row, so it's going to have to figure out how to cut up this video and make sure there's no mistakes. Next up, we have this

17:48 references folder. Inside of it are three short-form videos that I've already posted, so each one is sitting right next to the raw recording that it was made from. So that way you could see

17:57 exactly what it started with and what the finished video is supposed to look like. We also have a one-page style brief which explains my fonts, my layouts, and how I like my captions. Now

18:08 one thing I do want to point out is that I'm not giving it any templates or any editing software. In order to finish this, it's going to have to cut out all of my mistakes, build the visuals, and

18:17 add the captions and the music. Then it has to export a finished video completely on its own from just one prompt. And I'm not going to say I have no idea how this one's going to go.

18:27 Let's go ahead and paste in the prompt and see what we get. All right, so both of these models just finished and I have not seen either of these yet, so we're going to be viewing this together at the

18:35 exact same time. All right, so here we go. Let's take a look at the outputs between Opus 5.5 and Fable 5.2. I'm just going to shut up and let this play. It's going to be like a 45 50 second clip for

18:46 each of these. This free GitHub repo lets Claude use apps like Blender for you. It's called CLI Anything and it has over 58,000 stars. Instead of clicking around your screen, Claude controls the

18:57 app directly. It already works with Blender, Audacity, LibreOffice, OBS, and even Zoom. In one demo, an AI agent drew a full diagram in draw.io in about 4 minutes. In another demo, it

19:11 built a model of a Mars rover in FreeCAD. It was made by a research lab at the University of Hong Kong. It works best with free open source apps and you'll need to use Claude Code to run

19:21 it. If you want to try it out, comment control and I'll send you the link. I think that one is really solid to be completely honest. It looks very similar to the reference video that I fed it. It

19:31 uses the same type of typography and font throughout the video. The visuals that it pulled and sourced, like it's creating all these visuals and it did all this itself. I think that this is

19:41 really solid. I will say like this gets 90% of the job done. I'm interested to see if Fable 5.2 can fill that extra 10% gap in order to make this like flawless, but like I think that the animations

19:53 that are made are really good as you could see here. But overall, I am very impressed with the Opus 5.5 result here. Now, moving on to the Fable 5.2 output, let's just take a look at this one. This

20:05 free GitHub repo lets Claude use apps like Blender for you. It called CLI Anything and it has over 58,000 stars. Instead of clicking around your screen, Claude controls the app directly. It

20:16 already works with Blender, Audacity, LibreOffice, OBS, and even Zoom. In In one demo, an agent drew a full diagram in draw.io in about four minutes. In another demo, it built a

20:29 model of a Mars rover in FreeCAD. It was made by a research lab at the University of Hong Kong. It works best with free open source apps and you'll need to use Claude Code to run it. If you want to

20:40 try it out, comment control and I'll send you the link. Okay, so that one's pretty good as well. Like the typography, the visuals look great. However, there was a specific

20:48 part in the video where I repeated the word and two times and it didn't like cut that out, which is a crucial mistake when it comes to editing these videos. We can't have that happen. So I

20:58 personally would give Opus 5.5 the better output in this test right here. So let's go ahead and break down um how much it costed for each of these. All right, so for this one, Opus costed

21:08 $5.78 and took about 13 minutes and Fable costed $9.77 and took about 15 minutes. So Fable costed about 70% more for this specific

21:21 edit. All right, so let's go ahead and add all this up because this is really the entire point of the video. So here is the total cost of every single run in this video side by side. So now that we

21:31 know what everything costs, let's go back through every single test one more time and look at what each model actually built right next to what it costed. So starting with the website,

21:40 both of these were honestly really solid. I didn't necessarily see a big difference in the quality. I will say that Fable did add a couple of extra touches that I thought were kind of cool

21:50 and novel, like the range calculator and the savings cost breakdown, and it actually finished faster, but it also costed about 14% more. So for the sake of this test, I don't think it would be

22:00 worth it to upgrade to Fable 5.2 necessarily unless you don't really care about the cost. Next up, let's talk about the game and this is where Fable 5.2 really pulled ahead in these tests

22:12 that I did. The bridge example that I showed actually broke right behind me just like I asked in the instructions and the character moved a lot more naturally and this was a no-brainer when

22:21 you're looking at the outputs. It genuinely felt like I was playing a real polished video game, and this is the first time I've ever felt this when testing out any different AI model. And

22:31 on top of that, it was actually 13 cents cheaper and about nine minutes faster than Opus, which I did not expect at all and is probably the biggest surprise of this entire video. And then moving on to

22:41 the editing test, I personally think Opus 5.5 won this specific test. I I do think that both of the shorts looked really good, but Fable left a repeated word in the cut, and that is a big no-no

22:53 when it comes to editing videos. Opus also Opus also did it for $5.78 compared to $9.77, so it was a better option and a cheaper option from here, which is good news for

23:06 us Opus users. Now, if we add all of it up, Fable 5.2 costs double on paper, but across three of these tests, it only came out to about 14% more than Opus. I think the real question isn't just the

23:19 price, it's what we're actually going to be using it for. I'm personally still going to be using Opus 5.5 for most of my everyday work because I really like the way that Opus communicates with me,

23:30 and I feel like it gets a job done for most things. And as you can see from the editing tests, it's still really really good. But for something big and complex, for example, the video game that I

23:40 created where I need the result to look as good as possible, I'll probably go with Fable 5.2. And there we have it, that is Fable 5.2 versus Opus 5.5 across three different tests. I want to know in

23:53 the comments, do you think that the upgrade is worth the cost? Curious to hear what you guys are going to be using. If you enjoyed the video, make sure to subscribe for tons more content

24:02 exactly like this. Thanks for staying to the end, and I will see you in the next video. Cheers.