BREAKING: Claude Opus 5.5 Does Fable's Job for a Third of the Price

Author: Hyperautomation Labs · Watch on YouTube

Video authored by the channel shown, not by IANIA; all rights belong to the creator. Transcript and summary generated automatically; the original-language content is preserved.

Original language: English

Original video: BREAKING: Claude Opus 5.5 Does Fable’s Job for a Third of the Price · Channel: Hyperautomation Labs · 09:18 · Watch on YouTube

Topics: AI agents, AI evaluation and benchmarks, Claude Code, AI developer tools, AI models

Summary

The video compares Claude Opus 5.5 with Opus 5 and Fable 5.1 using benchmark results and four scripted small-business tasks. In the creator’s test, all 32 runs passed, while Opus 5.5 cost about half as much as Opus 5 and roughly a third as much as Fable. The video also discusses Opus 5.5’s default medium effort setting, where to change it, and API changes for developers. The creator recommends medium for everyday work, high when the model stalls, and keeping Fable for long unattended runs.

Key points

Opus 5.5 is available in Claude apps, Claude Code, and via the API; the video reports a 20% reduction in price per token and a 60% reduction for cached reads.
Anthropic’s published comparison shows Opus 5.5 ahead of Fable 5.1 on the listed tests, but the video notes narrow leads on some benchmarks and losses on business workflows and science research.
The headline benchmark results use max effort, while Opus 5.5’s default is medium; the video notes that its medium Cursor benchmark score still exceeded Fable at max.
The creator tested four small-business tasks across Opus 5.5 at medium and high, Opus 5, and Fable 5.1, with two rounds per model.
All 32 graded runs passed. The creator reports costs of about $1 for Opus 5, $0.50 for Opus 5.5, and $143 for Fable 5.1.
In the salon-report example, Opus 5.5 identified an off-by-one issue and finished in about 20 seconds and three turns; Opus 5 took about 40 seconds and seven turns.
Opus 5.5 generated about 99 tokens per second versus about 71 for Opus 5; the creator says the observed speed advantage was about 40%.
The creator did not consistently reproduce claims about fewer steps or less verbose output, noting the test was small.
The video recommends medium for well-scoped daily work and high when medium stalls; in the creator’s test, high cost about 3% more and produced equally clean results.
For API users, the video flags changes involving effort settings, forced tool calls, model-specific thinking blocks, and a replacement computer-use tool set.

Chapters

Start	Chapter	Summary
00:00	Opus 5.5 launch and pricing claims	The video introduces Opus 5.5, its reported capabilities, launch details, pricing changes, and subscription usage-limit updates.
01:39	Benchmark results and effort settings	The creator reviews Anthropic’s benchmark table, points out exceptions, and explains that headline results use max effort while the default is medium.
03:17	Four-task comparison test	The video describes the four small-business tasks and shows Opus 5.5 and Opus 5 completing the salon reporting task.
04:56	Test results, costs, and speed	The creator reports 32 passes, compares the models’ costs and speed, and discusses claims about steps and verbosity that did not consistently hold up.
06:33	Effort controls, safety, and API changes	The video explains how to change effort, notes reported safety results, outlines API migration changes, and gives the creator’s recommended model-routing rule.

Quotes

32 graded runs. 32 passes. — 04:56

Opus 5.5 wrote about 99 tokens a second. — 05:31

It’s a small test. Four jobs, two rounds. — 06:01

Medium for well scoped daily work. High when medium stalls — 06:33

Use Opus 5.5 on medium for everyday work. — 08:15

Concepts and entities

Claude Opus 5.5, Opus 5, Fable 5.1, GPT-6 Astra, Anthropic, Claude Code, API, esforço do modelo

Full transcript (original language)

00:00 Claude Opus 5.5 ship today. It worked out the exact second this 1968 photo was taken and rebuilt it in 3D. It turned a pencil sketch into a catapult with real physics. It designed a brick city, 2,874 pieces with zero weak joints. and it simulated the real GPS satellites to show how your phone finds you. Anthropic

00:31 says Claude Opus 5.5 does the work of Fable, its most expensive model, for a fraction of the price. So, I gave all three the same four real jobs graded by a script. Every run past Fable $143, Opus 5 A dollar, Opus 5.550. Stay for the one setting to change today and the two claims that failed. Here is what shipped this morning. Opus 5.5 is live in the Clawude apps in Cloud Code

01:06 and on the API. The price per token dropped 20% there. $4 in and $20 out per million tokens. Cashed reads dropped 60%. And in coding work, those are most of the bill. And if you pay for a subscription, this is the line that matters. Anthropic is increasing 5-hour usage limits on Pro, Max, Team, and Enterprise plans. And every subscriber

01:39 gets a rate limit reset that you can save and spend whenever you choose. It lives under settings then usage. Now the table anthropic published five models nine tests opus 5.5 beats fable 5.1 on every single row. Agentic coding in the terminal 66.4 against 55.8 8 real knowledge work 1846 against 1735 but look closer on computer use the lead

02:13 is about one point on reading charts less than one and there are two rows where it loses on business workflows and on science research openai’s GPT6 Astra is ahead remember that the next time someone tells you it crushes everything And here is the line most people skipped. It’s in the footnotes. All Opus 5.5 results use max effort. That is not what you get. Anthropic’s own docs say

02:45 the default effort on Opus 5.5 is medium. On Opus 5, it was high. So the headline scores are the model thinking as hard as it can. The price claim is the model on medium. The good news, Anthropic also published medium numbers on cursor bench. Opus 5.5 on medium scores, 52.5, still above fable on max. So I tested it myself. Quick one. If this saves you money, hit subscribe.

03:17 It’s free. And to back the work, hit join or the supporter button on Facebook. Four jobs any small business could hand to Claude. One, fix the bugs in an invoice calculator without touching the tests. Two, write a salon’s Saturday chair report where the script they normally use hides an off by one mistake. Three, answer an angry customer email with every fact it needs and none of the private ones. Four, clean a messy bakery sales export down to exact

03:51 totals. Four setups. Opus 5.5 on its default. Opus 5.5 on high, opus 5, and fable 5.1. Two rounds each. A script grades every answer, pass or fail. Here is the salon job recorded in clawed code. Both started at the same moment. On the left, Opus 5 on its default high. On the right, Opus 5.5 on medium. Opus

04:25 5.5 reads the spec, catches that the script drops the last minute of every booking and is done in about 20 seconds in three turns. Opus 5 gets there too in about 40 seconds and seven turns. Same correct report 13 35 minutes and five double bookings where the old script found one. And look at how Opus 5.5 finishes. It tells you the script it was handed is broken. Lists the three fixes

04:56 and asks before it touches anything. Here is the full board. 32 graded runs. 32 passes. Nobody failed a single job. So the difference is the bill for all four jobs. Opus five cost about a dollar. Fable cost $143. Opus 5.5 cost 50. That is half of Opus 5 and about a third of Fable for the same correct answers. Anthropic claimed 40% cheaper. On our jobs, it was closer to

05:31 50. And speed Opus 5.5 wrote about 99 tokens a second. Opus 5 about 71 that is 40% faster. Anthropic claimed 30. That one holds up too. Now the two claims that did not hold up for us. GitHub said opus 5.5 finishes tasks in less than half the steps. We saw that on one job out of four on the bug fix every model

06:01 took about four turns and box said 40% less verbose. Our customer emails came out 13% shorter. And Fable was actually the shortest of all. It’s a small test. Four jobs, two rounds. But I would rather show you the misses than hide them. Hide. So here is the setting. Opus 5.5 runs on medium unless you change it. On our jobs, turning it up to high cost

06:33 about 3% more and finished just as clean. Antropic’s own guide says the same thing. Medium for well scoped daily work. High when medium stalls and high pays for itself if it saves you a single retry. In clot code, type /effort. Press the right arrow once to move from medium to high and hit enter. That saves it as your default. Press s instead and it only lasts for this session. Or start

07:06 claude with d-effort high on the API. Set the effort field in your request. It also writes differently. Here is Antropicus side by side. The same bug explained by both models. Opus 5 opens with what I found. Opus 5.5 opens with the answer, the extra drop is a bug in the billing refactor. If you read Claude’s replies all day, you will feel this one. On safety, Anthropic ran nearly 2,000 test scenarios. Opus 5.5 scored better than any recent claude

07:44 model on nearly every measure and it tried to cross its boundaries about 85% less often than Opus 5. If you build on the API, four things break when you switch. Thinking can’t be turned off anymore, so you use effort instead. Forcing a tool call now returns an error. thinking blocks are tied to the model that wrote them and the older computer used tool is replaced by a new

08:15 tool set. The model name is Claude. Opus 55. So here is my rule after today. Use Opus 5.5 on medium for everyday work. Switch to high when it stalls and keep Fable 5.1 for long runs where nobody is watching because Antropic’s own guide says it costs two and a half times more. Real talk, 90% of you watching haven’t subscribed. On Facebook, subscribe is the supporter button. That is what keeps

08:46 the lights on here. On YouTube, it’s free and it tells the algorithm to send you more. Subscribe to support us. Everything is in the opus. 5.5 card the full test results the effort settings for clawed code and the API how to use your limit reset the four API changes with before and after code and my routing rule comment opus 55 and my bot sends it free new to claude code my

09:18 beginner guides are linked below to support this channel directly hit join under this video or the supporter button on Facebook and follow along on Instagram for the quick wins. Same answers, half the price. And now you know which dial to turn. See you in the next one.