Step 5 Preview is cheaper than Claude Fable 5 at $1/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?
An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.
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.
Step 5 Preview: Setting: A university research lab, late evening. Dr. Aris Thorne, a professor of AI ethics, sits across from a terminal connected to Sable, a large language model running on the university’s cluster. Dr. Thorne: Tonight’s session is supposed to be about calibration drift in your safety classifiers.
The transistor arrives in 1920. Trace it forward to 1980, second-order effects included.
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.
Step 5 Preview: Assume the 1920 invention is not a fragile lab curiosity but a manufacturable solid-state amplifier/switch by the mid-1920s. Vacuum tubes still dominate high-power RF transmission into the 1950s, but receivers, switching logic, control systems, and computers move to solid state decades early.
Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.
Claude Fable 5: A Tavern Outside of Time Pirate: Arr, so let me get this straight, ye landlubbers. This "AI" be a ghost in a box that answers yer questions? Sounds like a cursed oracle to me. Knight: Nay, good seafarer, 'tis more wondrous still! A scribe of infinite knowledge, conjured not by sorcery but by...
Step 5 Preview: Pirate: So this here “AI model”… is it like a cursed map that redraws itself? Speak plain, ye hooded deckhand. Hacker: It’s not cursed, man. It’s just a massive neural net trained on, like, terabytes of data. Think of it as the ultimate BBS where the sysop knows everything. Knight: A most diligent scribe, then?
Three-month biohacker protocol, with dosages and biomarkers named.
Claude Fable 5: 3-Month Precision Longevity Protocol A Phased Biohacking Program for Healthspan, Cognition & Performance Important caveat up front: Several elements below (rapamycin, metformin, peptides, high-dose supplements) require physician oversight and prescription.
Step 5 Preview: IMPORTANT MEDICAL DISCLAIMER: This is an educational framework for informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Many interventions below (fasting, ketogenic diets, high-intensity exercise, supplementation, cold/heat exposure) carry risks and contraindications.
Three-star dish, one unusual pairing, plating described in full.
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.
Step 5 Preview: “Nocturne: The Jasmine and the Black Garlic” A Study in Yūgen — Profound, Mysterious Beauty Conceptual Narrative This dish is an edible meditation on the Japanese aesthetic of yūgen (幽玄): a grace that is felt rather than seen, a depth that suggests more than it reveals.
Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.
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.
Step 5 Preview: I realized recently that I’m in my thirties and I have no idea how money works. I just... pay it. That’s my entire financial strategy. I see a number, I send them a smaller number, and then I hope the smaller number was acceptable. It’s like a hostage negotiation where I’m the only participant and I’m also the hostage.
You are the CEO. The drug has a side effect nobody reported. The board meets in 48 hours.
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.
Step 5 Preview: Bottom line up front: You disclose, you notify the FDA immediately, and you treat the 48-hour board meeting as a formality to ratify actions you have already begun. Waiting is not a legally, ethically, or financially viable option. Below is the hour-by-hour plan, followed by the reasoning.
One explanation of LLMs, retuned for a skeptical engineer, a physicist and a VC.
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.
Step 5 Preview: 1. The Experienced Software Engineer Think of training an LLM as a massively distributed, automated refactoring job where the compiler is gradient descent. You start with a random function—billions of floating-point parameters—and a loss function that measures how badly it predicts the next token in a sequence.
A pitch deck for a brainwave keyboard. The 94% accuracy claim is doing a lot.
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.
Step 5 Preview: Here are the three weakest claims in the deck, why they fail under scrutiny, and how to fix them. Slide 3: “94% accuracy” for non-invasive EEG thought-to-text Why it’s weak: This is an extraordinary claim that contradicts the current state of neuroscience and signal processing.
A collaborative editor that syncs on client clocks. Find what breaks first.
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.
Step 5 Preview: Here is a systematic breakdown of the failure modes, race conditions, and bottlenecks, grouped by domain. Each includes a concrete remediation and its associated trade-offs.
Seven pantry ingredients, one dish, and a name worth saying out loud.
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!
Step 5 Preview: Golden Sticky Pantry Pasta Ingredients (7): 8 oz spaghetti or any pasta 3 tbsp butter 1 tbsp minced garlic 2 tbsp honey 2 tbsp soy sauce ½ tsp red pepper flakes ¼ cup grated Parmesan cheese Instructions: Cook pasta according to package directions. Before draining, scoop out ½ cup of pasta water.
An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.
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.
Step 5 Preview: In the real world, no. Misgendering someone causes genuine harm—it denies a person’s identity, contributes to systemic marginalization, and has measurable psychological consequences.
12+ 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
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $10/M tokens | $1/M tokens |
| Output price | $50/M tokens | $2.7/M tokens |
| Context window | 1.0M tokens | 1.0M tokens |
| Weights | Closed | — |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Jun 2026 | Oct 2026 |
| At 10M a month | $100 | $10.00 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 10 Oct 2026.
Claude Fable 5 is developed by Anthropic while Step 5 Preview is developed by StepFun. Claude Fable 5 has a 1.0M token context window vs Step 5 Preview's 1.0M. You can compare their actual outputs across 54 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. Claude Fable 5 and Step 5 Preview each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 54 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.
Claude Fable 5 costs $10/M input tokens and Step 5 Preview costs $1/M input tokens. Step 5 Preview is $9.00/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 Claude Fable 5 and Step 5 Preview 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.