Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 4.7
Claude Fable 5.1 Verdict
- Claude Fable 5.1 (xhigh) leads on quality: 70.3 vs 65.5.
- Claude Fable 5.1 (xhigh) is stronger in coding, composite, knowledge, long context, reasoning.
- Claude Opus 4.7 is stronger in agents & tools, human preference, instruction following, maths, multimodal.
- Claude Opus 4.7 is 2.0× cheaper ($10.00 vs $20.00 per 1M blended).
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 (xhigh) | Claude Opus 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 70.3 | 65.5 |
| Coding score | 71.3 | 64.8 |
| Composite score | 95.0 | 80.3 |
| Knowledge score | 84.1 | 66.4 |
| Long context score | 68.1 | 65.9 |
| Reasoning score | 76.4 | 66.3 |
| Agents & tools score | – | 69.4 |
| Human preference score | – | 68.8 |
| Instruction following score | – | 58.5 |
| Maths score | – | 65.2 |
| Multimodal score | – | 65.7 |
| Blended price $/M | $20.00 | $10.00 |
| Output speed | 58 tok/s | 46 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 132.0 s | 21.2 s |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | 36.2% |
| Terminal-Bench | – | 80.2% |
| SimpleBench | – | 61.7% |
| SciCode | 60.1% | – |
| WeirdML | – | 76.4% |
| FrontierCode | – | 38.5% |
| GSO-Bench | – | 44.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | – | 156.3 |
| LMArena Text | – | 1495 |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | – | 1519 |
| LMArena Coding | – | 1547 |
| LMArena WebDev | – | 1557 |
| LMArena Vision | – | 1317 |
| AA Intelligence Index | 53.2 | 40.7 |
| IFBench | – | 58.6% |
| AA-LCR | 83.0% | 78.7% |
| MMMU-Pro | – | 78.8% |
| AA-Omniscience | 42.4 | 27.3 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | – | 51.5% |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 93.4% | 91.4% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 58.7% | 42.3% |
| SciCode (AA) | 60.9% | – |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | – | 88.6% |
| AIME (Vals) | – | 96.3% |
| LiveCodeBench | – | 85.1% |
| MMLU-Pro | – | 89.9% |
| IOI | – | 47.1% |
| LegalBench | – | 85.3% |
| CorpFin | – | 66.1% |
| TaxEval | – | 75.3% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | – | 68.5% |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | – | 82.0% |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | – | 90.2% |
| Vals Index | – | 56.1 |
| HiL-Bench | – | 41.7% |
| EQ-Bench 4 | – | 1311 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | – | 73.3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 96.5% | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90.0% | – |
Data as of 2026-09-09. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.