Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3 7
Claude Fable 5.1 
Qwen3 7 Verdict
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) leads on quality: 70.3 vs 61.3.
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, composite, human preference, knowledge, maths, reasoning.
- Qwen3 7 (max) is stronger in instruction following, long context.
- Qwen3 7 (max) is 5.3× cheaper ($3.75 vs $20.00 per 1M blended).
- Qwen3 7 (max) streams 4.2× faster (169 vs 40 tokens per second).
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) | Qwen3 7 (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 70.3 | 61.3 |
| Agents & tools score | 67.4 | 56.0 |
| Coding score | 78.4 | 61.4 |
| Composite score | 76.6 | 56.4 |
| Human preference score | 71.3 | 57.2 |
| Knowledge score | 75.9 | 63.6 |
| Maths score | 77.0 | 57.4 |
| Reasoning score | 71.9 | 66.8 |
| Instruction following score | – | 77.6 |
| Long context score | – | 66.0 |
| Blended price $/M | $20.00 | $3.75 |
| Output speed | 40 tok/s | 169 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 299.8 s | 16.5 s |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| GPQA Diamond | – | 90.9% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | 90.2% | 64.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | 34.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 100.0% | 95.6% |
| SWE-bench Verified (Epoch) | – | 77.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | 55.8% |
| Terminal-Bench | 57.9% | – |
| SimpleBench | – | 70.4% |
| SciCode | 62.0% | 48.8% |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | – |
| ProofBench | 100.0% | 26.0% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | – | 153.7 |
| LMArena Text | 1504 | 1474 |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1522 | 1495 |
| LMArena Coding | 1517 | 1525 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1764 | 1517 |
| LMArena Agent | 14.5 | -3.1 |
| LiveBench | 83.4% | 73.1% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 91.7% | 83.3% |
| LiveBench Coding | 86.4% | 74.2% |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | 66.1% | 43.6% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | 97.0% | 85.3% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 80.3% | 71.8% |
| LiveBench Language | 89.5% | 79.7% |
| AA Intelligence Index | – | 29.9 |
| IFBench | – | 80.5% |
| AA-LCR | – | 79.0% |
| AA-Omniscience | – | 13.5 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | – | 50.8% |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | – | 92.3% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | – | 40.5% |
| SciCode (AA) | – | 49.5% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | – | 94.7% |
| LiveCodeBench | – | 87.1% |
| MMLU-Pro | – | 89.3% |
| IOI | – | 46.8% |
| LegalBench | – | 84.9% |
| CorpFin | – | 63.7% |
| TaxEval | – | 75.3% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | – | 61.0% |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | – | 68.8% |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | – | 90.2% |
| Vals Index | – | 44.8 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | – | 1110 |
| 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 Qwen3 7: questions
- Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Qwen3 7?
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) leads on quality: 70.3 vs 61.3. 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 Qwen3 7 for coding?
- Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in coding (78 vs 61 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Qwen3 7 for agentic tasks?
- Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in agentic tasks (67 vs 56 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen3 7?
- Qwen3 7 is cheaper: $3.75 against $20.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen3 7?
- Qwen3 7 streams faster: 169 against 40 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Both accept 1M tokens of context.