Claude GuideDevantia × Executive Partners Group
DevantiaExecutive Partners Group
0/23 Jean-Christophe Leroy
Jean-Christophe Leroy
Guide author
✓ Verified on September 3, 2026⏱ 2 min read
Module 16

Competitor comparison

CriterionClaudeChatGPTGeminiMistralPerplexity
Flagship modelFable 5 ✦GPT-5.5GeminiMistral LargeSonar
Context1M ✦128K1M128KVariable
Output128K ✦16K64K32K~8K
Writing★★★★★★★★★☆★★★★☆★★★★☆★★★☆☆
Coding80.8% SWE-bench*80.0%★★★★☆★★★★☆★★★☆☆
Research★★★★☆★★★★☆★★★★☆★★★☆☆★★★★★ ✦
ImagesAnalysis ✓ · generation noDALL-E 3Nano BananaNoNo
Computer ctrlCowork ✦OperatorAgentNoNo
OfficeAdd-ins ✦CopilotWorkspaceNoNo
Skills2,300+ ✦GPTsGemsLe ChatSpaces
SafetyConstitution ✦RLHFFiltersGuardrailsStandard
Pro price$20$20$20Free$20
Open srcNoNoPartialYes ✦No
🦋 The gap widens on long tasks With the launch of Fable 5 (Mythos class), Claude is state of the art on nearly every public benchmark — the edge is all the sharper when the task is long and complex (large-scale code migrations, multi-day autonomous research). Two officially claimed references: the best score ever recorded on FrontierCode (Cognition) and on Hebbia's Finance Benchmark. And Opus 5 puts this frontier intelligence at half the price — it even beats Fable 5 on some benchmarks, such as OSWorld 2.0 (computer use). Fable 5.1 is back on top (Terminal-Bench 4.0, Humanity's Last Exam) ahead of Opus 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol, at the same price as Fable 5 but with cache reads 4× cheaper. On image generation, Claude deliberately stays absent: pair it with a dedicated tool if needed.

* SWE-bench: the industry's reference test on code (Sonnet 4.6 score, Feb. 2026 — Sonnet 5 and Fable 5 do better). The stars reflect a usage impression, not an official measure: run your own test on your real cases.

Blind test — 134 participants (Feb. 2026, independent community study, read with caution)

🥇 FIRST

Claude — 4/8

Margins 35-54 pts

🥈 SECOND

Gemini — 3/8

Margins 3-11 pts

🥉 THIRD

ChatGPT — 1/8

Margin 25 pts