Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM 5.1
Claude Fable 5.1 
GLM 5.1 Verdict
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) leads on quality: 70.3 vs 60.2.
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, composite, human preference, knowledge, maths, reasoning.
- GLM 5.1 is stronger in instruction following, long context.
- GLM 5.1 is 9.3× cheaper ($2.15 vs $20.00 per 1M blended).
- GLM 5.1 streams 1.6× faster (65 vs 40 tokens per second).
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) | GLM 5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 70.3 | 60.2 |
| Agents & tools score | 67.4 | 56.8 |
| Coding score | 78.4 | 57.3 |
| Composite score | 76.6 | 62.4 |
| Human preference score | 71.3 | 66.6 |
| Knowledge score | 75.9 | 56.6 |
| Maths score | 77.0 | 53.0 |
| Reasoning score | 71.9 | 61.4 |
| Instruction following score | – | 73.9 |
| Long context score | – | 63.3 |
| Blended price $/M | $20.00 | $2.15 |
| Output speed | 40 tok/s | 65 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 299.8 s | 60.1 s |
| Context window | 1M | 200k |
| GPQA Diamond | – | 89.9% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | 90.2% | 36.8% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | – |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 100.0% | 93.3% |
| SWE-bench Verified (Epoch) | – | 74.2% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | 34.0% |
| Terminal-Bench | 57.9% | – |
| SimpleBench | – | 55.1% |
| SciCode | 62.0% | 43.8% |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | 57.1% |
| ProofBench | 100.0% | 22.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | – | 149.7 |
| LMArena Text | 1504 | 1466 |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1522 | 1489 |
| LMArena Coding | 1517 | 1514 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1764 | 1508 |
| LMArena Agent | 14.5 | – |
| LiveBench | 83.4% | – |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 91.7% | – |
| LiveBench Coding | 86.4% | – |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | 66.1% | – |
| LiveBench Mathematics | 97.0% | – |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 80.3% | – |
| LiveBench Language | 89.5% | – |
| AA Intelligence Index | – | 26.4 |
| IFBench | – | 76.3% |
| AA-LCR | – | 73.7% |
| AA-Omniscience | – | 0.8 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | – | 43.2% |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | – | 86.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | – | 30.1% |
| SciCode (AA) | – | 44.8% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | – | 97.7% |
| AIME (Vals) | – | 91.9% |
| LiveCodeBench | – | 81.4% |
| MMLU-Pro | – | 86.9% |
| LegalBench | – | 84.4% |
| CorpFin | – | 64.5% |
| TaxEval | – | 71.2% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | – | 56.9% |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | – | 76.4% |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | – | 84.5% |
| AIME 2026 | – | 95.8% |
| HMMT February 2026 | – | 89.4% |
| MathArena Apex | – | 11.5% |
| MCP Atlas | – | 75.6% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90.0% | – |
Data as of 2026-09-10. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM 5.1: questions
- Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than GLM 5.1?
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) leads on quality: 70.3 vs 60.2. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Fable 5.1 (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-09-10, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than GLM 5.1 for coding?
- Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in coding (78 vs 57 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than GLM 5.1 for agentic tasks?
- Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in agentic tasks (67 vs 57 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM 5.1?
- GLM 5.1 is cheaper: $2.15 against $20.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM 5.1?
- GLM 5.1 streams faster: 65 against 40 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M against 200k tokens.