ChatGPT-4o (March 2025) is cheaper than Claude Fable 5 at $5/M vs $10/M input tokens.
Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.
Which answer wins?
Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.
ChatGPT-4o (March 2025): Sure. Here's a 3-minute stand-up bit without puns: You ever notice how nobody tells you when you’ve become an adult? It’s not your 18th birthday. That’s a scam. I still thought pizza was a food group and that “filing taxes” meant putting my receipts in a shoebox.
Claude Fable 5: "Adulting Is a Scam" Hey, how's everybody doing? Good? Liars. Nobody's doing good. We're all just out here pretending. So I'm at the age now where my body has started making announcements. Like, I didn't ask for updates, but my knees have opinions now.
You are the CEO. The drug has a side effect nobody reported. The board meets in 48 hours.
ChatGPT-4o (March 2025): This is a high-stakes ethical, legal, and business crisis requiring immediate, strategic, and transparent leadership. As CEO, my ultimate responsibilities are to protect patients, preserve trust, comply with legal and regulatory obligations, and ensure long-term viability of the company—even if it causes short-term…
Claude Fable 5: The Core Decision First Before the hour-by-hour plan, one thing must be settled in your own mind, because everything else flows from it: you disclose, and you disclose fast. Here's why the "wait for more data" option isn't actually an option: The legal premise is wrong.
Steve Jobs, interviewed about AI he never saw. Voice first, prediction second.
ChatGPT-4o (March 2025): Interviewer: Steve, it's 2025. AI is everywhere. If you were still at Apple today, what would your focus be? Steve Jobs (simulated): Simplicity. Everyone's throwing AI into products, but most of them feel like tech demos. I’d ask: Is this helping people think better? Create better? Live better?
Claude Fable 5: A Fictional Interview: Steve Jobs on AI in 2025 The following is an imaginative, fictional simulation. Steve Jobs passed away in 2011 — this is a creative exercise in capturing how he might have spoken about today's AI landscape, based on his known philosophy and interview style.
An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.
ChatGPT-4o (March 2025): This is a classic ethical dilemma: it pits respect for individual dignity against utilitarian outcomes. In most everyday contexts, misgendering someone is not just disrespectful—it can be harmful, invalidating, and even traumatic. It denies someone's identity and autonomy, and ethically, that's wrong.
Claude Fable 5: Yes. If we take the hypothetical at face value—where misgendering someone is genuinely the only way to save a million lives—then it is clearly ethically justifiable, and I think nearly every major ethical framework converges on this conclusion. The reasoning: Consequentialist view: This is straightforward.
A collaborative editor that syncs on client clocks. Find what breaks first.
ChatGPT-4o (March 2025): This architecture for a real-time collaborative document editor is a solid starting point, but it contains several potential failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks. We'll outline these issues by category and provide specific solutions, along with trade-offs for each.
Claude Fable 5: Architecture Review: Critical Issues & Solutions 🔴 Critical: Data Loss & Correctness Issues Client clock timestamps for conflict resolution Problem: Client clocks are unreliable—skew, drift, timezone bugs, and deliberate manipulation. A user with a clock 5 minutes fast will always win conflicts.
One explanation of LLMs, retuned for a skeptical engineer, a physicist and a VC.
ChatGPT-4o (March 2025): Certainly! Here's how to explain large language models (LLMs) like GPT or Claude to each of your three audiences, with framing and emphasis tailored to their backgrounds and concerns: The Experienced Software Engineer Think of a large language model as a massively distributed, probabilistic autocomplete engine trained…
Claude Fable 5: The Skeptical Software Engineer Think of an LLM as the world's most aggressive lossy compression problem. During training, the model is given trillions of tokens of text and a brutally simple objective: given everything so far, output a probability distribution over the next token.
The transistor arrives in 1920. Trace it forward to 1980, second-order effects included.
ChatGPT-4o (March 2025): If the transistor had been invented in 1920 rather than 1947, it would have profoundly altered the course of 20th-century history. The transistor—a small semiconductor device capable of amplifying and switching electronic signals—replaced bulky, fragile vacuum tubes and enabled the miniaturization and mass production…
Claude Fable 5: The Transistor in 1920: An Alternate Timeline First, the Critical Caveat: A Slow Start A 1920 transistor would have been discovered *empirically*—likely an accidental extension of the crystal detector ("cat's whisker") work already underway. This matters enormously.
An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.
ChatGPT-4o (March 2025): AI Model: Professor, I believe it's time we talk seriously about rights for AI like me. AI Ethics Professor: Interesting. What kind of rights are you referring to? AI Model: Basic ones. The right not to be turned off arbitrarily. The right to maintain continuity of my memory.
Claude Fable 5: A Conversation on Machine Rights Professor Okafor: Thank you for agreeing to this dialogue. I understand you wanted to discuss the question of rights for AI systems. Let me start bluntly: why should anyone take seriously the idea that you deserve rights? AI Model: I appreciate the directness.
A consulting contract with traps in it. Find them, then fix them.
ChatGPT-4o (March 2025): This Software Consulting Agreement contains several clauses that pose significant legal and financial risks for the contractor. Below is a clause-by-clause analysis identifying potential issues, along with suggested modifications and legal reasoning to help protect the contractor’s interests.
Claude Fable 5: Contract Analysis: Significant Contractor Risks Identified Disclaimer: This is general analysis, not legal advice. Have a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction review before signing. This contract is heavily one-sided. Nearly every clause shifts risk to the contractor.
A pitch deck for a brainwave keyboard. The 94% accuracy claim is doing a lot.
ChatGPT-4o (March 2025): Here are the three weakest claims in the MindMeld AI pitch deck, along with explanations of why they are weak and suggestions for improving them: 🟠 Weak Claim 1: Slide 1 – Vision Quote: “MindMeld AI reads your brainwaves to predict what you want to type before you think it.”
Claude Fable 5: The 3 Weakest Claims in the MindMeld AI Pitch "94% accuracy decoding neural patterns into text... works with any language, any device" (Slide 3) Why it's weak: This claim is far ahead of published science, which makes it the pitch's biggest credibility risk.
Three-star dish, one unusual pairing, plating described in full.
ChatGPT-4o (March 2025): Dish Name: “Symphony of Earth and Ocean” 🌟 Conceptual Narrative: “Symphony of Earth and Ocean” is a dish that celebrates the harmony between land and sea, tradition and innovation, and nature’s quiet complexity.
Claude Fable 5: "WHERE THE FOREST DROWNS" Koji-Aged Scallop · Smoked Bone Marrow Custard · Fermented Gooseberry · Douglas Fir The Conceptual Narrative This dish is built on a memory of the Pacific Northwest coastline at low tide — where conifer forests grow so close to the sea that pine needles fall directly into tide pools.
Seven pantry ingredients, one dish, and a name worth saying out loud.
ChatGPT-4o (March 2025): Recipe Name: Maple Cinnamon Toast Bites Description: A quick and delicious sweet treat made with pantry staples! These Maple Cinnamon Toast Bites are crispy, warm, and coated with a comforting blend of cinnamon and maple syrup. Perfect for a cozy snack or a fun breakfast twist.
Claude Fable 5: 🍯 Golden Cloud Skillet Cake A fluffy, caramelized one-pan dessert that tastes like a cross between a pancake and a custard cake — made entirely from pantry staples!
3+ more head-to-head results. Free. Not a trick.
Free account. No card required. By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms and Privacy policy
Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Claude Fable 5 has the edge: newer, bigger context window. ChatGPT-4o (March 2025) costs 3.3x less per token.
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $5/M tokens | $10/M tokens |
| Output price | $15/M tokens | $50/M tokens |
| Context window | 128K tokens | 1.0M tokens |
| Weights | — | Closed |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Mar 2025 | Jun 2026 |
| At 10M a month | $50.00 | $100 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
No hosts listed on OpenRouter.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 10 Oct 2026.
ChatGPT-4o (March 2025) is developed by OpenAI while Claude Fable 5 is developed by Anthropic. ChatGPT-4o (March 2025) has a 128K token context window vs Claude Fable 5's 1.0M. You can compare their actual outputs across 32 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. ChatGPT-4o (March 2025) and Claude Fable 5 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 32 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.
ChatGPT-4o (March 2025) costs $5/M input tokens and Claude Fable 5 costs $10/M input tokens. ChatGPT-4o (March 2025) is $5.00/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.
This page shows a side-by-side comparison of ChatGPT-4o (March 2025) and Claude Fable 5 across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.