Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 4.8
Full profiles: Claude Fable 5.1 (Anthropic) and Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic): every benchmark, price and rank.
Updated · Data from 12 sources
As of 24 Oct 2026, Claude Fable 5.1 (max) leads on quality (70.5 vs 63.3 on the BenchLeader Index), but Claude Opus 4.8 (max) costs 2.0× less, so it is the better buy unless you need the extra quality. Claude Fable 5.1 leads in every category we measure both in.
Claude Fable 5.1 benchmarks max Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 benchmarks max AnthropicOpen in the comparison toolWhich to pick for…
The pick's numbers come first. Category scores on the BenchLeader scale (50 is the average model, 15 points one standard deviation). High confidence means a lead of half a standard deviation or more; under one point is called either.
| Use case | Pick | Why | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Fable 5.1 | 75 vs 59 category score; SciCode 63.1% vs 53.5% | High |
| Agents & tool use | Claude Fable 5.1 | 60 vs 57 category score; Terminal-Bench 57.9% vs 23.6% | Medium |
| Maths | Claude Fable 5.1 | 73 vs 68 category score; FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 90.2% vs 80.0% | Medium |
| Reasoning | Claude Fable 5.1 | 77 vs 69 category score; CritPt 29.7% vs 20.9% | High |
| Knowledge | Claude Fable 5.1 | 78 vs 67 category score; SimpleQA Verified 70.8% vs 53.0% | High |
| Long documents | Claude Fable 5.1 | 68 vs 64 category score; AA-LCR 85.3% vs 77.7% | Medium |
| Chat quality (human preference) | – | Only Claude Fable 5.1 has an Arena rating (70 category score) | Not comparable |
| Lowest cost | Claude Opus 4.8 | $10.00 vs $20.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.400 vs $0.800 | – |
| Fastest first answer | Claude Opus 4.8 | 27.5 s (Claude Opus 4.8 (max)) vs 163.2 s (Claude Fable 5.1 (max)) to the first answer token | – |
| High volume on a budget | Neither flagship | A smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs | – |
Key differences
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) leads on quality: 70.5 vs 63.3.
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, composite, human preference, knowledge, long context, maths, multimodal, reasoning.
- Claude Opus 4.8 (max) is stronger in instruction following.
- Claude Opus 4.8 (max) is 2.0× cheaper ($10.00 vs $20.00 per 1M blended).
At a glance
| Spec | Claude Fable 5.1 | Claude Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | Anthropic |
| Released | 1 Sept 2026 | 28 May 2026 |
| Context window (tokens) | 1,000,000 | 1,000,000 |
| Compared at | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) | Claude Opus 4.8 (max) |
| Open weights | No | No |
| Price in / out / cached input per 1M | $10.00 / $50.00 / $0.250 | $5.00 / $25.00 / $0.500 |
Category by category
Category scores on the BenchLeader scale: 50 is the average evaluated model, 15 points is one standard deviation. A gap under one point is called level.
| Category | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) | Claude Opus 4.8 (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 76.8 | 68.8 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Coding | 75.0 | 58.9 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Agents & tools | 60.2 | 56.5 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Maths | 72.9 | 68.1 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Knowledge | 77.5 | 66.9 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Instruction following | – | 62.1 | not comparable |
| Human preference | 70.0 | – | not comparable |
| Multimodal | 67.1 | – | not comparable |
| Long context | 67.8 | 63.8 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Composite | 89.2 | 76.2 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
Where sources disagree
Across the 36 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.1 leads 33, Claude Opus 4.8 leads 3. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5.1 ahead.
| Overall index | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) | Claude Opus 4.8 (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 70.5 | 63.3 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | 53.4 | 41.8 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Arena Text | 1503 | 1482† | Claude Fable 5.1 |
Each publisher runs its own tasks, harnesses and effort settings, so their overall verdicts can differ; BenchLeader reconciles them on one scale. † measured at another effort setting of the same model (the publisher did not test the one compared here).
Price, speed and latency
List prices blended at three input tokens per output token. Per-task prices use the token counts on the methodology page; suite cost is what Artificial Analysis paid to run its whole Intelligence Index.
| Measure | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) | Claude Opus 4.8 (max) |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $20.00 | $10.00 |
| Input / output per 1M | $10.00 / $50.00 | $5.00 / $25.00 |
| Cached input per 1M | $0.250 | $0.500 |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.019 | $0.0095 |
| Price per task: summarize a 30-page report | $0.150 | $0.075 |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.135 | $0.068 |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.800 | $0.400 |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.030 | $0.015 |
| Cost to run a full benchmark suite | $7.63 | $4.08 |
| Output speed | 68 tok/s | 63 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 163.2 s | 27.5 s |
| Time to a complete answer | 170.6 s | 35.4 s |
Per token is not per task: on Artificial Analysis' full suite Claude Fable 5.1 (max) cost $7.63 and Claude Opus 4.8 (max) $4.08, because Claude Opus 4.8 (max) used about 1.1× as many tokens for the same work.
Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Claude Fable 5.1 (max) scores 70.5 and takes 163 s to its first answer token; Claude Fable 5.1 (xhigh) scores 69.5 in 54 s, Claude Fable 5.1 (high) scores 69.4 in 19 s. Claude Opus 4.8 (max) scores 63.3 and takes 28 s to its first answer token; Claude Opus 4.8 (high) scores 60.7 in 1 s, Claude Opus 4.8 scores 60.1 in 1 s. Higher effort means more thinking before the answer: better scores, longer waits and more tokens billed. How reasoning effort changes scores and cost.
Every benchmark
155 benchmarks, grouped by category; each name links to the board and its leaders. † measured at another effort setting of the same model, shown for reference and not counted as a win.
| Metric | Publisher | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) | Claude Opus 4.8 (max) |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | BenchLeader | 70.5 | 63.3 |
| Agents & tools score | BenchLeader | 60.2 | 56.5 |
| Coding score | BenchLeader | 75.0 | 58.9 |
| Composite score | BenchLeader | 89.2 | 76.2 |
| Human preference score | BenchLeader | 70.0 | – |
| Knowledge score | BenchLeader | 77.5 | 66.9 |
| Long context score | BenchLeader | 67.8 | 63.8 |
| Maths score | BenchLeader | 72.9 | 68.1 |
| Multimodal score | BenchLeader | 67.1 | – |
| Reasoning score | BenchLeader | 76.8 | 68.8 |
| Instruction following score | BenchLeader | – | 62.1 |
| Blended price $/M | BenchLeader | $20.00 | $10.00 |
| Output speed | BenchLeader | 68 tok/s | 63 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | BenchLeader | 163.2 s | 27.5 s |
| Context window | BenchLeader | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens |
| Reasoning | |||
| GPQA Diamond | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 91.0% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | Scale AI / CAIS | 46.5%† | – |
| SimpleBench | SimpleBench | – | 64.8%† |
| Arena Hard Prompts | Arena (LMArena) | 1523 | 1505† |
| LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 91.7%† | 89.2%† |
| LiveBench 1.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 91.7% | 89.2% |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 93.7% | 92.0% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 59.1% | 48.7% |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | Vals AI | 93.4%† | 92.4%† |
| EnigmaEval | Scale AI SEAL | – | 23.5%† |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | Kagi LLM Benchmark | – | 88.8%† |
| ARC-AGI-1 | ARC Prize | 97.5% | 92.5% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | ARC Prize | 90.0% | 72.1%† |
| ARC-AGI-3 | ARC Prize | – | 1.5%† |
| CritPt | Artificial Analysis | 29.7% | 20.9% |
| MysteryMechanism | Vals AI | 47.8%† | – |
| Chess Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 48.0% | 52.0% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 58.0% | 36.0% |
| LMCA | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 65.5%† | 57.5% |
| DTBench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 97.6%† | 94.9% |
| ForecastBench | ForecastBench | – | 66.3% |
| BTF-3 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 14.0%† |
| Coding | |||
| SciCode | SciCode | 63.1% | 53.5% |
| WeirdML | WeirdML | 92.9% | 70.5%† |
| FrontierCode | Cognition | 50.9%† | 46.5%† |
Show all 155 benchmarks
| Metric | Publisher | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) | Claude Opus 4.8 (max) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | |||
| GSO-Bench | GSO-Bench | 88.2%† | 47.1%† |
| Arena Coding | Arena (LMArena) | 1538 | 1529† |
| Arena WebDev | Arena (LMArena) | 1743 | 1536† |
| LiveBench 2.0 Coding | LiveBench | 97.7%† | 77.3%† |
| LiveBench 1.0 Coding | LiveBench | 86.4% | 81.8% |
| SciCode (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 63.1% | 54.4% |
| LiveCodeBench | Vals AI | 90.5%† | 87.8%† |
| IOI | Vals AI | 90.8%† | – |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 88.6%† |
| Code Migration | Vals AI | 54.6%† | 47.3%† |
| ProgramBench | Vals AI | 7.0%† | 1.0%† |
| SWE-bench Multimodal | Vals AI | 61.3%† | – |
| Vibe Code Bench 1-100 | Vals AI | 28.0%† | – |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 90.3%† | 82.7%† |
| SWE Atlas: Codebase QnA | Scale AI SEAL | 60.0%† | 57.3%† |
| SWE Atlas: Refactoring | Scale AI SEAL | 56.7%† | 46.7%† |
| SWE Atlas: Test Writing | Scale AI SEAL | 67.0%† | 49.6%† |
| MirrorCode | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 73.3%† | – |
| Surface Evolver Bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 87.5%† |
| DeepSWE v1.1 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 59.0% |
| CursorBench | Cursor | 51.8% | – |
| ALE-Bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 2143.2† | 1563.8† |
| FrontierSWE | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 56.3% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 52.0% | 21.7% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 91.4% | 84.6% |
| Startrise Frontend | Startrise | 77.1%† | – |
| FrontierCode 1.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 49.0% | – |
| Agents & tools | |||
| Terminal-Bench | Terminal-Bench | 57.9% | 23.6% |
| OSWorld-Verified 2.0 | OSWorld | – | 20.6% |
| Remote Labor Index | Scale AI / CAIS | 17.9%† | 8.3%† |
| APEX-Agents | Mercor | 68.6%† | 48.9% |
| Arena Agent | Arena (LMArena) | 14.2 | – |
| LiveBench Long Agentic | LiveBench | 80.8%† | 48.3%† |
| LiveBench Browser | LiveBench | 100.0%† | 96.0%† |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | LiveBench | 66.1% | 50.5% |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | Artificial Analysis | – | 58.3% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 94.4% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | Vals AI | 85.0%† | 71.9%† |
| MCP Atlas | Scale AI SEAL | 87.2%† | 82.2% |
| HiL-Bench | Scale AI SEAL | 61.5%† | 35.3%† |
| τ³-bench Banking | τ²-bench | – | 39.7% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | Artificial Analysis | 62.7% | – |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 47.2% | 34.2% |
| ITBench SRE (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 49.5% | – |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 57.5% | 45.0% |
| CUA-bench | Vals AI | 13.2% | – |
| CyberBench | Vals AI | 70.4%† | – |
| Finance Agent v2 | Vals AI | 58.9%† | 53.9%† |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1 | Vals AI | 6.7%† | 9.6%† |
| Legal Research Bench | Vals AI | 55.3%† | 43.8%† |
| Robo-bench | Vals AI | 5.8% | – |
| SkillsBench | Vals AI | 61.5%† | 59.2%† |
| SREBench | Vals AI | 22.9%† | – |
| Tax Agent Bench | Vals AI | 49.2%† | 30.0%† |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 70.0%† |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | 58.1%† | 23.2%† |
| Terminal-Bench Science | Vals AI | 40.0%† | 4.3%† |
| Time Horizon Index: KSP | Vals AI | 63.3%† | 11.8%† |
| Arena Search | Arena (LMArena) | 1233† | 1195† |
| DeepResearch Bench | DeepResearch Bench | – | 50.2%† |
| PostTrainBench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 32.9% |
| GBAEval | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 70.9%† |
| Vending-Bench 2 | Andon Labs | 5421.6† | 2992.3 |
| AutomationBench | Artificial Analysis | 59.4% | 45.6% |
| GDP.pdf (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 26.2% | 22.8% |
| Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 | Harvey | 6.4% | – |
| EnterpriseOps-Gym | Artificial Analysis | – | 44.0% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1671 | – |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 43.3% | – |
| CWE-Bench (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 50.8% | – |
| DeepSec-Bench (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 23.5% | – |
| CyberGym end-to-end (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 0.8% | – |
| FACTS Search | – | 79.6%† | |
| Maths | |||
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 90.2% | 80.0% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 87.8% | 56.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 100.0% | 98.3% |
| ProofBench | Vals AI | 100.0% | 69.0% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | LiveBench | 97.0% | 94.3% |
| AIME 2026 | MathArena | – | 100.0% |
| HMMT February 2026 | MathArena | – | 95.5% |
| MathArena Apex | MathArena | – | 81.3% |
| Arena Maths | Arena (LMArena) | 1529 | 1477† |
| Knowledge | |||
| SimpleQA Verified | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 70.8% | 53.0% |
| LiveBench 2.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 80.3%† | 66.0%† |
| LiveBench Research | LiveBench | 82.0%† | 81.8%† |
| LiveBench 1.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 80.3% | 66.0% |
| AA-Omniscience | Artificial Analysis | 43.5 | 28.8 |
| MMLU-Pro | Vals AI | 92.4%† | 89.6%† |
| LegalBench | Vals AI | 88.5%† | 83.6%† |
| CorpFin | Vals AI | – | 66.7%† |
| TaxEval | Vals AI | 76.0%† | 75.6%† |
| PRBench Finance | Scale AI SEAL | 50.8%† | – |
| PRBench Legal | Scale AI SEAL | 51.6%† | – |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | Vals AI | 76.7%† | 69.4%† |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | 76.7%† | – |
| MedCode | Vals AI | 53.5%† | 53.2%† |
| MedScribe | Vals AI | 91.3%† | 85.8%† |
| Public Benefits Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 74.9%† | 68.1%† |
| DrugDiscoveryBench | Scale AI SEAL | – | 46.8% |
| EBR-bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 57.1% | 28.6% |
| GDP.pdf | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 27.6% | 24.0% |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | Artificial Analysis | 67.2% | 48.8% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | Artificial Analysis | 27.4% | 60.8% |
| Instruction following | |||
| LiveBench Language | LiveBench | 89.5% | 79.7% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | LiveBench | 73.0% | 72.0% |
| IFBench | Artificial Analysis | – | 62.2% |
| Arena Instruction Following | Arena (LMArena) | 1501 | 1478† |
| Human preference | |||
| Arena Text | Arena (LMArena) | 1503 | 1474† |
| EQ-Bench 4 | EQ-Bench | – | 1281† |
| Arena Creative Writing | Arena (LMArena) | 1487 | 1463† |
| Arena Multi-turn | Arena (LMArena) | 1488 | 1495† |
| Arena Longer Queries | Arena (LMArena) | 1511 | 1499† |
| Multimodal | |||
| Arena Vision | Arena (LMArena) | 1320 | 1289† |
| LiveBench Design | LiveBench | 83.4%† | 78.8%† |
| MMMU-Pro (Vals) | Vals AI | 90.6%† | 86.6%† |
| MortgageTax | Vals AI | 70.8%† | 69.9%† |
| SAGE | Vals AI | 48.5%† | 54.8%† |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 41.9%† | 14.5%† |
| AA-3D | Artificial Analysis | 1133 | – |
| Long context | |||
| AA-LCR | Artificial Analysis | 85.3% | 77.7% |
| Arena Document | Arena (LMArena) | 1493 | 1475† |
| MLCR | Artificial Analysis | 15.6% | 19.4% |
| Composite | |||
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 166.5† | 159.0† |
| LiveBench 2.0 | LiveBench | 88.0%† | 76.8%† |
| LiveBench 1.0 | LiveBench | 83.4% | 76.2% |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | Artificial Analysis | 53.4 | 41.8 |
| Vals RSI Index | Vals AI | 36.1% | 24.0% |
| Vals Multimodal Index | Vals AI | – | 70.9%† |
| AA Cyber Index | Artificial Analysis | 25.0 | – |
| Safety & honesty | |||
| FORTRESS | Scale AI SEAL | 13.7%† | 18.2% |
Data as of 2026-10-24. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
What changed
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): 2 new results (Robo-bench, Vals RSI Index).
- Claude Opus 4.8 (max): 1 new result (Vals RSI Index).
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): 1 score revision.
- Claude Opus 4.8 (max): 1 score revision.
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): 1 score revision.
- Claude Opus 4.8 (max): 1 new result (ForecastBench).
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): BenchLeader Index 70.0 → 70.6.
- Claude Opus 4.8 (max): BenchLeader Index 62.5 → 63.4.
- Claude Opus 4.8 (max): 5 new results (AutomationBench, GDP.pdf (AA), MLCR…).
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): 2 score revisions.
Related comparisons
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 4 Argon
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Wonder Full
- Claude Opus 4.8 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemini 4 Argon
- Claude Opus 4.8 vs Muse Wonder Full
- Claude Opus 5 vs Claude Opus 4.8
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 4.7
Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for coding · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 4.8: questions
- Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Claude Opus 4.8?
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) leads on quality: 70.5 vs 63.3. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Fable 5.1 (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-10-24, but check the category scores for your use.
- Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or Claude Opus 4.8, and will that change?
- Claude Opus 4.8 is cheaper today: $10.00 against $20.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token. No price change has been announced for either.
- Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Claude Opus 4.8 for coding?
- Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in coding (75 vs 59 on the category index, where 50 is average). On SciCode, the top shared coding benchmark, it is 63.1% for Claude Fable 5.1 against 53.5% for Claude Opus 4.8.
- Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Claude Opus 4.8 for agents and tool use?
- Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in agentic tasks (60 vs 57 on the category index, where 50 is average). On Terminal-Bench, the top shared agents & tools benchmark, it is 57.9% for Claude Fable 5.1 against 23.6% for Claude Opus 4.8.
- Which is better for long documents?
- Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on long-context benchmarks (68 vs 64). Both accept 1,000,000 tokens of context.
- Which has lower latency?
- Claude Opus 4.8 (max) answers first: 27.5 s against 163.2 s to the first answer token, as Artificial Analysis measures it. Reasoning effort drives most of this: a higher setting thinks longer before it answers.
- Which is faster, Claude Fable 5.1 or Claude Opus 4.8?
- Claude Fable 5.1 streams faster: 68 against 63 output tokens per second.
- Do independent benchmarks agree on Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 4.8?
- Across the 36 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.1 leads 33, Claude Opus 4.8 leads 3. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5.1 ahead.
- When was Claude Fable 5.1 released?
- Claude Fable 5.1 was released on 1 Sept 2026.