Technical Report No. 07

Grok 4.5 vs Fable 5 vs GPT-5.6 Sol

2026-07-12 · 23 tasks · 207 runs · $96.72 total · deterministic grading
Abstract.

Grok 4.5 leads at 91% from medium effort onward — high effort buys it nothing but a 31% larger bill. GPT-5.6 Sol is the only model whose accuracy climbs monotonically with effort (78→83→87%); Fable 5 oscillates at 85±2% regardless of the knob. The two frontier-hard tasks went 0-for-27.

Model card: Grok 4.5 vs Claude Fable 5 vs GPT-5.6 Sol across low, medium, and high effort on 23 v3 tasks
Card. Accuracy and cost-efficiency across nine configurations. Within each model group, shades darken low → medium → high.

Grok owns the efficiency frontier; only Sol climbs with effort.

Model (effort)Scorepass@1CostTokens/taskTime/task$/solved
Grok 4.5 (medium)21/2391.3%$6.67106 K3.9 min$0.32
Grok 4.5 (high)21/2391.3%$8.76141 K4.9 min$0.42
Claude Fable 5 (low)20/2387.0%$12.1828 K3.4 min$0.61
GPT-5.6 Sol (high)20/2387.0%$15.9085 K4.2 min$0.80
Claude Fable 5 (high)20/2387.0%$20.8244 K4.3 min$1.04
Grok 4.5 (low)19/2382.6%$3.3957 K2.5 min$0.18
GPT-5.6 Sol (medium)19/2382.6%$8.8350 K2.8 min$0.46
Claude Fable 5 (medium)19/2382.6%$16.3236 K3.7 min$0.86
GPT-5.6 Sol (low)18/2378.3%$3.8523 K1.5 min$0.21

Fable 5 ran with Opus 4.8 refusal fallback: 6 of 69 runs (8.7%) were declined by the API safety classifier (category cyber; the same three tasks at every effort) and served end-to-end by Opus 4.8; all six passed. Tokens are billed tokens; time is sandbox wall-clock.

1.

Grok plateaus at medium — and that’s the efficiency frontier. High effort spends 33% more tokens and 31% more money for the identical 21/23, failing the same two tasks. No config in the matrix beats 91.3% at $0.29/task.

2.

Only Sol rewards the effort knob. 78.3 → 82.6 → 87.0%, monotonic; each step buys real accuracy. Fable oscillates at 85±2% (87.0 → 82.6 → 87.0) with a different failure set each run — the knob changes which borderline tasks fall, not how many.

3.

Frugal tokens, premium price. Fable uses the fewest tokens at every effort (28–44 K/task, roughly half the agent steps of Grok) yet is the costliest per solved task ($0.61–$1.04) at $10/$50-per-M pricing.

4.

The difficulty ceiling held; one wall fell. PennyLane Trotter fragmentation and SQLGlot internal-name canonicalization went 0-for-27 across all models and efforts. Flask’s teardown-error redesign fell to all three models — but only at high effort, making it the suite’s cleanest effort-discriminator.

Seven tasks that separated the field.

TaskGrok l/m/hFable l/m/hSol l/m/h
pennylane-trotter-fragmented× × ×× × ×× × ×
sqlglot-canonicalize-internal-names× × ×× × ×× × ×
flask-teardown-robust× ✓ ✓× ✓ ✓× × ✓
aiohttp-upgrade-deferred× ✓ ✓× ✓ ✓
itertools-strip-prefix✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓× × ×
networkx-leiden-communities✓ ✓ ✓✓ × ×✓ ✓ ✓
sqlglot-iso8601-nanos✓ ✓ ✓✓ × ✓✓ ✓ ✓

The remaining 16 tasks passed everywhere. Fable cells on aiohttp-upgrade-deferred were served by the Opus 4.8 refusal fallback.

Twenty-three tasks from real merged pull requests (Python 9, Rust 4, TypeScript 4, JavaScript 3, Go 3 — jiff, itertools, zod, hono, node-semver, cobra, pflag, chi, flask, aiohttp, sqlglot, packaging, more-itertools, networkx, pennylane), all merged after model training cutoffs, graded by deterministic hidden tests in a network-isolated Docker sandbox. One attempt per task per effort level (low, medium, high). Every task pre-validated: gold patch = 1.0, unpatched = 0.0, deterministic over 3 runs.

Pricing: Grok 4.5 $2/$6, GPT-5.6 Sol $5/$30, Claude Fable 5 $10/$50 per million tokens. Fable refusal fallback: VULCANBENCH_REFUSAL_FALLBACK=claude-opus-4-8.

← All benchmarks