Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Astra
Full profiles: Claude Fable 5.1 (Anthropic) and GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI): every benchmark, price and rank.
Updated · Data from 10 sources
As of 24 Oct 2026, Claude Fable 5.1 (max) and GPT-6 Astra (max) are neck and neck on quality (70.5 vs 70.4, inside the ±6.1 margin of error) and close on price, so pick on the category that matters to you. Pick Claude Fable 5.1 for human preference (70 vs 67); pick GPT-6 Astra for agents & tools (64 vs 60).
Claude Fable 5.1 benchmarks max Anthropic
GPT-6 Astra benchmarks max OpenAIOpen 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 74 category score; SciCode 63.1% vs 56.5% | Medium |
| Agents & tool use | GPT-6 Astra | 64 vs 60 category score; Terminal-Bench 58.2% vs 57.9% | Medium |
| Maths | Claude Fable 5.1 | 73 vs 72 category score; Arena Maths 1529 vs 1487 | Medium |
| Reasoning | Either | 77 vs 76 category score; ARC-AGI-2 90.0% vs 95.0% | Either |
| Knowledge | GPT-6 Astra | 80 vs 78 category score; SimpleQA Verified 75.6% vs 70.8% | Medium |
| Long documents | Claude Fable 5.1 | 68 vs 65 category score; AA-LCR 85.3% vs 80.7% | Medium |
| Images and other media | Claude Fable 5.1 | 67 vs 66 category score; Arena Vision 1320 vs 1280 | Medium |
| Chat quality (human preference) | Claude Fable 5.1 | 70 vs 67 on Arena votes | Medium |
| Lowest cost | Either | $20.00 vs $20.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.800 vs $0.800 | – |
| Fastest first answer | Claude Fable 5.1 | 163.2 s (Claude Fable 5.1 (max)) vs 247.0 s (GPT-6 Astra (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) and GPT-6 Astra (max) are neck and neck on quality (70.5 vs 70.4, within the ±6.1 margin).
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) is stronger in coding, composite, human preference, long context, maths, multimodal, reasoning.
- GPT-6 Astra (max) is stronger in agents & tools, knowledge.
- They cost about the same ($20.00 per 1M blended).
At a glance
| Spec | Claude Fable 5.1 | GPT-6 Astra |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Released | 1 Sept 2026 | 2 Sept 2026 |
| Context window (tokens) | 1,000,000 | 1,050,000 |
| Compared at | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) | GPT-6 Astra (max) |
| Open weights | No | No |
| Price in / out / cached input per 1M | $10.00 / $50.00 / $0.250 | $10.00 / $50.00 / $1.00 |
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) | GPT-6 Astra (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 76.8 | 76.2 | level |
| Coding | 75.0 | 74.0 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Agents & tools | 60.2 | 64.2 | GPT-6 Astra |
| Maths | 72.9 | 71.8 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Knowledge | 77.5 | 79.5 | GPT-6 Astra |
| Human preference | 70.0 | 66.7 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Multimodal | 67.1 | 66.0 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Long context | 67.8 | 65.4 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Composite | 89.2 | 88.4 | level |
Where sources disagree
Across the 61 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.1 leads 27, GPT-6 Astra leads 32 and 2 are tied. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5.1 ahead.
| Overall index | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) | GPT-6 Astra (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 70.5 | 70.4 | neck and neck |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | 53.4 | 52.7 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Arena Text | 1503 | 1477 | 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) | GPT-6 Astra (max) |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $20.00 | $20.00 |
| Input / output per 1M | $10.00 / $50.00 | $10.00 / $50.00 |
| Cached input per 1M | $0.250 | $1.00 |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.019 | $0.019 |
| Price per task: summarize a 30-page report | $0.150 | $0.150 |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.135 | $0.135 |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.800 | $0.800 |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.030 | $0.030 |
| Cost to run a full benchmark suite | $7.63 | $3.26 |
| Output speed | 68 tok/s | 58 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 163.2 s | 247.0 s |
| Time to a complete answer | 170.6 s | 255.6 s |
Per token is not per task: on Artificial Analysis' full suite Claude Fable 5.1 (max) cost $7.63 and GPT-6 Astra (max) $3.26, because Claude Fable 5.1 (max) used about 2.3× as many tokens for the same work, which a per-token price hides.
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. GPT-6 Astra (max) scores 70.4 and takes 247 s to its first answer token; GPT-6 Astra (high) scores 69.6 in 35 s, GPT-6 Astra (xhigh) scores 68.9 in 130 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
142 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) | GPT-6 Astra (max) |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | BenchLeader | 70.5 | 70.4 |
| Agents & tools score | BenchLeader | 60.2 | 64.2 |
| Coding score | BenchLeader | 75.0 | 74.0 |
| Composite score | BenchLeader | 89.2 | 88.4 |
| Human preference score | BenchLeader | 70.0 | 66.7 |
| Knowledge score | BenchLeader | 77.5 | 79.5 |
| Long context score | BenchLeader | 67.8 | 65.4 |
| Maths score | BenchLeader | 72.9 | 71.8 |
| Multimodal score | BenchLeader | 67.1 | 66.0 |
| Reasoning score | BenchLeader | 76.8 | 76.2 |
| Blended price $/M | BenchLeader | $20.00 | $20.00 |
| Output speed | BenchLeader | 68 tok/s | 58 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | BenchLeader | 163.2 s | 247.0 s |
| Context window | BenchLeader | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,050,000 tokens |
| Reasoning | |||
| GPQA Diamond | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 95.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | Scale AI / CAIS | 46.5%† | 54.8%† |
| Arena Hard Prompts | Arena (LMArena) | 1523 | 1501 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 91.7%† | 92.7%† |
| LiveBench 1.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 91.7% | 92.7% |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 93.7% | 96.1% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 59.1% | 54.7% |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | Vals AI | 93.4%† | – |
| ARC-AGI-1 | ARC Prize | 97.5% | 97.5% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | ARC Prize | 90.0% | 95.0% |
| ARC-AGI-3 | ARC Prize | – | 98.6% |
| CritPt | Artificial Analysis | 29.7% | 31.7% |
| MysteryMechanism | Vals AI | 47.8%† | 53.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 48.0% | 74.0% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 58.0% | 84.0% |
| LMCA | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 65.5%† | 64.1%† |
| DTBench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 97.6%† | 97.1%† |
| BTF-3 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 13.5%† |
| Coding | |||
| SciCode | SciCode | 63.1% | 56.5% |
| WeirdML | WeirdML | 92.9% | 93.3% |
| FrontierCode | Cognition | 50.9%† | 53.3% |
| GSO-Bench | GSO-Bench | 88.2%† | 79.4%† |
| Arena Coding | Arena (LMArena) | 1538 | 1543 |
| Arena WebDev | Arena (LMArena) | 1743 | 1775 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Coding | LiveBench | 97.7%† | 93.7%† |
Show all 142 benchmarks
| Metric | Publisher | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) | GPT-6 Astra (max) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | |||
| LiveBench 1.0 Coding | LiveBench | 86.4% | 80.4% |
| LiveCodeBench | Vals AI | 90.5%† | – |
| IOI | Vals AI | 90.8%† | 100.0% |
| Code Migration | Vals AI | 54.6%† | 67.7% |
| Code Migration v1.1 | Vals AI | – | 80.6% |
| ProgramBench | Vals AI | 7.0%† | 5.5% |
| SWE-bench Multimodal | Vals AI | 61.3%† | 43.3% |
| Vibe Code Bench 1-100 | Vals AI | 28.0%† | 27.6% |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 90.3%† | 89.6% |
| SWE Atlas: Codebase QnA | Scale AI SEAL | 60.0%† | 59.1%† |
| SWE Atlas: Refactoring | Scale AI SEAL | 56.7%† | 59.0%† |
| SWE Atlas: Test Writing | Scale AI SEAL | 67.0%† | 50.7%† |
| MirrorCode | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 73.3%† | 46.7%† |
| DeepSWE v1.1 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 73.2% |
| CursorBench | Cursor | 51.8% | – |
| ALE-Bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 2143.2† | 2951.3 |
| FrontierSWE | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 56.3% | 65.5% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 52.0% | 59.1% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 91.4% | 88.4% |
| Startrise Frontend | Startrise | 77.1%† | 79.9%† |
| FrontierCode 1.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 49.0% | 47.0% |
| Agents & tools | |||
| Terminal-Bench | Terminal-Bench | 57.9% | 58.2% |
| Remote Labor Index | Scale AI / CAIS | 17.9%† | 20.8%† |
| APEX-Agents | Mercor | 68.6%† | 64.7%† |
| Arena Agent | Arena (LMArena) | 14.2 | 14.7 |
| LiveBench Long Agentic | LiveBench | 80.8%† | 82.4%† |
| LiveBench Browser | LiveBench | 100.0%† | 84.0%† |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | LiveBench | 66.1% | 57.3% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | Vals AI | 85.0%† | 87.3% |
| MCP Atlas | Scale AI SEAL | 87.2%† | – |
| HiL-Bench | Scale AI SEAL | 61.5%† | 65.3%† |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | Artificial Analysis | 62.7% | 53.7% |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 47.2% | 41.4% |
| ITBench SRE (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 49.5% | 48.6% |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 57.5% | 51.3% |
| CUA-bench | Vals AI | 13.2% | 19.2% |
| CyberBench | Vals AI | 70.4%† | 41.1% |
| Finance Agent v2 | Vals AI | 58.9%† | 53.5% |
| Finance Agent v2.1 | Vals AI | – | 60.4% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | – | 7.1% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1 | Vals AI | 6.7%† | 5.4% |
| Legal Research Bench | Vals AI | 55.3%† | 39.4% |
| Robo-bench | Vals AI | 5.8% | 23.3% |
| SkillsBench | Vals AI | 61.5%† | – |
| SREBench | Vals AI | 22.9%† | 56.9% |
| Tax Agent Bench | Vals AI | 49.2%† | 20.7% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | 58.1%† | 59.6% |
| Terminal-Bench Science | Vals AI | 40.0%† | 62.9% |
| Time Horizon Index: KSP | Vals AI | 63.3%† | 90.5% |
| Arena Search | Arena (LMArena) | 1233† | 1246 |
| BALROG | BALROG | – | 68.3% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | Andon Labs | 5421.6† | 15514.7† |
| AutomationBench | Artificial Analysis | 59.4% | 68.5% |
| GDP.pdf (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 26.2% | 31.0% |
| Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 | Harvey | 6.4% | 8.6% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1671 | 1568 |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 43.3% | 63.3% |
| CWE-Bench (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 50.8% | 63.3% |
| DeepSec-Bench (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 23.5% | 36.9% |
| CyberGym end-to-end (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 0.8% | 0.0% |
| FACTS Search | – | 89.9%† | |
| Maths | |||
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 90.2% | 93.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 87.8% | 97.6% |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| ProofBench | Vals AI | 100.0% | 99.0%† |
| LiveBench Mathematics | LiveBench | 97.0% | 96.8% |
| Arena Maths | Arena (LMArena) | 1529 | 1487 |
| Knowledge | |||
| SimpleQA Verified | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 70.8% | 75.6% |
| LiveBench 2.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 80.3%† | 83.0%† |
| LiveBench Research | LiveBench | 82.0%† | 85.2%† |
| LiveBench 1.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 80.3% | 83.0% |
| AA-Omniscience | Artificial Analysis | 43.5 | 43.4 |
| MMLU-Pro | Vals AI | 92.4%† | – |
| LegalBench | Vals AI | 88.5%† | – |
| TaxEval | Vals AI | 76.0%† | – |
| PRBench Finance | Scale AI SEAL | 50.8%† | 47.5%† |
| PRBench Legal | Scale AI SEAL | 51.6%† | 48.4%† |
| BioMysteryBench | Vals AI | – | 79.3% |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | Vals AI | 76.7%† | 71.7% |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | 76.7%† | 72.7% |
| MedCode | Vals AI | 53.5%† | 48.5% |
| MedScribe | Vals AI | 91.3%† | 87.9% |
| Public Benefits Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 74.9%† | – |
| DrugDiscoveryBench | Scale AI SEAL | – | 68.7% |
| EBR-bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 57.1% | 76.2% |
| GDP.pdf | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 27.6% | 34.2% |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | Artificial Analysis | 67.2% | 62.6% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | Artificial Analysis | 27.4% | 48.7% |
| Instruction following | |||
| LiveBench Language | LiveBench | 89.5% | 89.4% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | LiveBench | 73.0% | 75.6% |
| Arena Instruction Following | Arena (LMArena) | 1501 | 1473 |
| Human preference | |||
| Arena Text | Arena (LMArena) | 1503 | 1477 |
| Arena Creative Writing | Arena (LMArena) | 1487 | 1450 |
| Arena Multi-turn | Arena (LMArena) | 1488 | 1485 |
| Arena Longer Queries | Arena (LMArena) | 1511 | 1489 |
| Multimodal | |||
| Arena Vision | Arena (LMArena) | 1320 | 1280 |
| LiveBench Design | LiveBench | 83.4%† | 82.0%† |
| MMMU-Pro | Artificial Analysis | – | 86.9% |
| MMMU-Pro (Vals) | Vals AI | 90.6%† | – |
| MortgageTax | Vals AI | 70.8%† | – |
| SAGE | Vals AI | 48.5%† | 46.4% |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 41.9%† | 49.7%† |
| AA-3D | Artificial Analysis | 1133 | 1166 |
| Long context | |||
| AA-LCR | Artificial Analysis | 85.3% | 80.7% |
| Arena Document | Arena (LMArena) | 1493 | 1473 |
| MLCR | Artificial Analysis | 15.6% | 41.7% |
| Composite | |||
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 166.5† | 168.8† |
| LiveBench 2.0 | LiveBench | 88.0%† | 86.1%† |
| LiveBench 1.0 | LiveBench | 83.4% | 82.2% |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | Artificial Analysis | 53.4 | 52.7 |
| Vals Index | Vals AI | – | 65.0 |
| Vals Finance Index | Vals AI | – | 55.6% |
| Vals RSI Index | Vals AI | 36.1% | 27.1% |
| Vals Science Index | Vals AI | – | 65.1% |
| Vals Router Index | Vals AI | – | 65.0%† |
| AA Cyber Index | Artificial Analysis | 25.0 | 33.4 |
| Safety & honesty | |||
| FORTRESS | Scale AI SEAL | 13.7%† | – |
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).
- GPT-6 Astra (max): 9 new results (Code Migration v1.1, Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1, Finance Agent v2.1…).
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): 1 score revision.
- GPT-6 Astra (max): 1 score revision.
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): 1 score revision.
- GPT-6 Astra (max): 4 score revisions.
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): BenchLeader Index 70.0 → 70.6.
- GPT-6 Astra (max): BenchLeader Index 69.8 → 70.6.
- GPT-6 Astra (max): 1 score revision.
- 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
- GPT-6 Astra vs Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6 Astra vs Gemini 4 Argon
- GPT-6 Astra vs Muse Wonder Full
- Claude Opus 5 vs GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-5.6 Sol
Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for coding · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs
Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Astra: questions
- Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than GPT-6 Astra?
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) and GPT-6 Astra (max) are neck and neck on quality (70.5 vs 70.4, within the ±6.1 margin). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; the two are within the margin of error as of 2026-10-24, so check the category scores for your use.
- Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or GPT-6 Astra, and will that change?
- They cost the same: $20.00 per million tokens blended. No price change has been announced for either.
- Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than GPT-6 Astra for coding?
- Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in coding (75 vs 74 on the category index, where 50 is average). On Arena WebDev, the top shared coding benchmark, it is 1743 for Claude Fable 5.1 against 1775 for GPT-6 Astra.
- Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than GPT-6 Astra for agents and tool use?
- GPT-6 Astra scores higher in agentic tasks (64 vs 60 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 58.2% for GPT-6 Astra.
- Which is better for long documents?
- Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on long-context benchmarks (68 vs 65). Both take about 1.1M tokens: Claude Fable 5.1 1,000,000, GPT-6 Astra 1,050,000.
- Which has lower latency?
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) answers first: 163.2 s against 247.0 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 GPT-6 Astra?
- Claude Fable 5.1 streams faster: 68 against 58 output tokens per second.
- Do independent benchmarks agree on Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Astra?
- Across the 61 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.1 leads 27, GPT-6 Astra leads 32 and 2 are tied. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5.1 ahead.
- When was GPT-6 Astra released?
- GPT-6 Astra was released on 2 Sept 2026.