Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.8 27B
Claude Fable 5.1 
Qwen3.8 27B Verdict
- Claude Fable 5.1 (high) leads on quality: 72.0 vs 59.2.
- Claude Fable 5.1 (high) is stronger in coding, composite, knowledge, long context, reasoning.
- Qwen3.8 27B (xhigh) is stronger in agents & tools, multimodal.
- Qwen3.8 27B (xhigh) is 21× cheaper ($0.938 vs $20.00 per 1M blended).
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 (high) | Qwen3.8 27B (xhigh) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 72.0 | 59.2 |
| Agents & tools score | 66.6 | 67.3 |
| Coding score | 74.1 | 53.2 |
| Composite score | 94.0 | 72.0 |
| Knowledge score | 83.7 | 56.4 |
| Long context score | 68.4 | 67.5 |
| Reasoning score | 81.0 | 52.5 |
| Multimodal score | – | 60.7 |
| Blended price $/M | $20.00 | $0.938 |
| Output speed | 55 tok/s | 42 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 14.7 s | 51.0 s |
| Context window | 1M | 262k |
| Terminal-Bench | 54.5% | – |
| SciCode | 57.6% | 44.7% |
| WeirdML | 92.3% | – |
| APEX-Agents | 44.4% | – |
| AA Intelligence Index | 51.2 | 33.9 |
| AA-LCR | 83.7% | 82.0% |
| MMMU-Pro | – | 76.3% |
| AA-Omniscience | 40.8 | -10.0 |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 90.6% | 90.5% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 55.9% | 33.9% |
| SciCode (AA) | 58.7% | 46.6% |
| LiveCodeBench | – | 84.0% |
| MMLU-Pro | – | 84.3% |
| IOI | – | 39.1% |
| LegalBench | – | 82.4% |
| TaxEval | – | 70.8% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | – | 58.4% |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | – | 86.0% |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | – | 88.9% |
| Vals Index | – | 48.5 |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 96.0% | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 88.8% | – |
| CritPt | 30.3% | 5.4% |
| GDPval (AA) | 57.5% | 48.2% |
| τ²-Bench Banking (AA) | 43.1% | 48.0% |
| Code Migration | – | 14.2% |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | – | 59.7% |
| Finance Agent v2 | – | 48.5% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark | – | 11.3% |
| Legal Research Bench | – | 36.1% |
| MedCode | – | 28.7% |
| MedScribe | – | 83.8% |
| MMMU-Pro (Vals) | – | 83.9% |
| MortgageTax | – | 64.9% |
| ProgramBench | – | 0.0% |
| SAGE | – | 52.4% |
| SkillsBench | – | 38.1% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | – | 4.0% |
| Terminal-Bench Science | – | 1.4% |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | – | 64.8% |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | – |
| Surface Evolver Bench | – | 45.0% |
| CursorBench | 69.4% | – |
| ALE-Bench | 2143.2 | – |
Data as of 2026-09-19. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.8 27B: questions
- Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Qwen3.8 27B?
- Claude Fable 5.1 (high) leads on quality: 72.0 vs 59.2. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Fable 5.1 (high) is ahead overall as of 2026-09-19, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Qwen3.8 27B for coding?
- Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in coding (74 vs 53 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Qwen3.8 27B for agentic tasks?
- Qwen3.8 27B scores higher in agentic tasks (67 vs 67 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen3.8 27B?
- Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper: $0.938 against $20.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen3.8 27B?
- Claude Fable 5.1 streams faster: 55 against 42 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M against 262k tokens.