Hemmingway Pricing Log in Try free

Blog · Comparison

Hemmingway vs Claude for writing

Claude is one of the best AI writers. How Hemmingway compares with Fable 5.1, Fable 5 and Opus on AI detectors, emails, sounding human and stories.

By the Hemmingway team · · updated

Anthropic's Claude models have a reputation as good writers, and in our tests they earn it. Fable 5.1 was the closest model to Hemmingway-1 on everyday writing, and Fable 5 Max wrote better long stories. So this is a close comparison, and we will say where each wins.

Hemmingway now writes with Hemmingway-1.5, released on 25 October 2026 and built on Hemmingway-1. Where the two differ most is AI detectors: on the same 80 everyday asks, 92% of Hemmingway-1.5's answers passed GPTZero & Pangram and the top AI detectors, and 26% of Fable 5.1's. The benchmark scores below are Hemmingway-1's.

The numbers

TestHemmingwayClaude
Passes AI detectors, same 80 asks (our test)Hemmingway-1.5 92%Fable 5.1 26%
Everyday messages (our test)Hemmingway-1 1026Fable 5.1 1024, Fable 5 1009
Sounds like a person (our test)Hemmingway-1 1032Fable 5.1 1006, Fable 5 992
EQ-Bench 4 (public)Hemmingway-1 1330Fable 5 1341, Opus 4.7 1312, Opus 4.8 1285
Long stories (our test)Hemmingway-1 1197Fable 5 Max 1277

Where Claude wins

  • Long stories. Fable 5 Max beat Hemmingway-1 on StoryBench by 80 points, and the newer Fable 5.1 is stronger still. For a novel or long chapters, Claude is the better pick.
  • EQ-Bench 4. Fable 5 scored eleven points above Hemmingway-1 and was first in the comparison.
  • Everything that is not writing. Claude is a general assistant: code, analysis, long documents. Hemmingway is not.

Where Hemmingway wins

  • Passing AI detectors. On the same 80 everyday asks, GPTZero & Pangram and four open AI detectors read 92% of Hemmingway-1.5's answers as human, and 26% of Fable 5.1's. How that was tested.
  • Sounding like a person. Asked which of two replies a person wrote, the judge picked Hemmingway-1's over Fable 5.1's more often: 1032 to 1006.
  • Giving you just the message. Fable 5 put the message inside commentary, options or notes in more than nine replies out of ten in our test, and Fable 5.1 did it often too. Hemmingway-1 gives you the text you asked for and nothing around it.
  • Everyday messages. Level with Fable 5.1, ahead of Fable 5.
  • Size and openness. Hemmingway-1.5 and Hemmingway-1 are 27B models with open weights under CC BY-NC 4.0. You can run them yourself for non-commercial use. Details here.

How the app is different

Claude is a chat assistant. Hemmingway is built around the people you write to. You tell it who someone is and it writes to them the way you would. In the apps for Mac, Windows and Android it reads your mail and chats and drafts each reply for you to send, and Autopilot can answer the easy ones by your rules.

We never train our models on your chats, memory or People. Our privacy page lists everything we keep.

About the tests

Everyday messages, sounding like a person and StoryBench are our own benchmarks: blind, run in both orders, with a judge that is not one of the models being judged. EQ-Bench 4 is public and not ours. The detector test is on Hemmingway-1.5's model card, and the benchmark scores on Hemmingway-1's.

Try HemmingwayDownload the app

Common questions

Is Hemmingway better than Claude for writing?

It depends on the writing. On AI detectors, 92% of Hemmingway-1.5's answers to our 80 everyday asks passed, against 26% of Fable 5.1's. In our benchmarks Hemmingway-1 was level with Fable 5.1 on everyday messages and ahead of it on sounding like a person, 1032 to 1006. Claude wins on long stories and on the public EQ-Bench 4, where Fable 5 scored eleven points higher.

Which is better for writing a novel, Hemmingway or Claude?

Claude. Fable 5 Max beat Hemmingway-1 on our StoryBench by 80 points, and the newer Fable 5.1 is stronger still.

Why does Claude put notes and options around my message?

In our test, Fable 5 wrapped the message in commentary, options or notes in more than nine replies out of ten, and Fable 5.1 did it often too. Hemmingway-1 gives you the text you asked for and nothing around it.

Can I run Hemmingway myself?

Yes. Hemmingway-1.5 and Hemmingway-1 are 27B models with open weights under CC BY-NC 4.0, free for non-commercial use; commercial use is by agreement with us. How to run Hemmingway-1.5.

Try Hemmingway

Read next

  • Hemmingway vs ChatGPT for writingChatGPT does almost everything. Hemmingway does one thing: writing that sounds like you. How they compare on emails, messages, stories and privacy.
  • Claude vs ChatGPT for writingWhich writes better, Claude or ChatGPT? Our blind tests of Fable 5.1 and GPT-6 Astra on everyday messages, sounding human, stories and emotional intelligence.
  • The best AI for creative writing in 2026Which AI models write the best stories, poems and letters? Our blind StoryBench and EQ-Bench 4 results, including where our own model loses.
  • The best AI for writing emails and messagesWe tested the largest AI models on eighty real email and message requests, judged blind and by AI detectors. The scores, and what they mean.
  • Claude alternatives for writingClaude alternatives for writing, by job: ChatGPT for long fiction, Hemmingway for emails and messages, Gemini inside Google's apps. What our own tests found.
  • Hemmingway vs Google Gemini for writingHemmingway vs Google Gemini for writing: what each is built for, how you use them, privacy and open weights. We have no writing scores for Gemini, and say so.
  • The best open-source LLM for writingHemmingway-1.5 is a 27B open-weights writing model under CC BY-NC 4.0 that passes AI detectors 90% of the time. How it and Hemmingway-1 score, and how to run them.