> With Fable 5, Strands harness cost 77% less than Claude Code and scored higher on Terminal Bench 2.1.

Terminal Bench 2.1 is saturated. Many token saving techniques would save money and score basically the same running Fable 5 against Terminal Bench 2.1. (They claim a better score but don’t say how much better. I’d bet my favorite hat that it’s not statistically significant.)

This is at least the fourth time I’ve seen a project hit front page with a “save money with same score on saturated benchmark” claim.

▲

strandstan an hour ago | parent [-]

The scores are in blog post's bar chart. For Terminal Bench 2.1, Strands harness (Fable 5) scored 69.7 while Claude Code (Fable 5) scored 61.8. This is on high effort.

I hear you tho about saturation. We're working on a follow-up deep dive post with more harnesses, so could look into Terminal Bench 4.0?

	▲	seizethecheese an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Then I'm really confused. Terminal Bench 2.1 scores on Artificial Analysis are like 90%. https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/terminalbench-2-1