Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Fable 5.1
Full profiles: Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic) and Claude Fable 5.1 (Anthropic): every benchmark, price and rank.
Updated · Data from 10 sources
As of 24 Oct 2026, Claude Fable 5 (max) and Claude Fable 5.1 (max) are neck and neck on quality (69.3 vs 70.5, inside the ±6.4 margin of error) and close on price, so pick on the category that matters to you. Pick Claude Fable 5 for agents & tools (65 vs 60); pick Claude Fable 5.1 for reasoning (77 vs 74).
Claude Fable 5 benchmarks max Anthropic Claude Fable 5.1 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 74 category score; SciCode 63.1% vs 61.0% | Medium |
| Agents & tool use | Claude Fable 5 | 65 vs 60 category score; Terminal-Bench 44.5% vs 57.9% | Medium |
| Maths | Either | 72 vs 73 category score; FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 87.0% vs 90.2% | Either |
| Reasoning | Claude Fable 5.1 | 77 vs 74 category score; ARC-AGI-2 90.0% vs 89.2% | Medium |
| Knowledge | Claude Fable 5 | 81 vs 78 category score; AA-Omniscience 43.3 vs 43.5 | Medium |
| Long documents | Claude Fable 5.1 | 68 vs 66 category score; AA-LCR 85.3% vs 82.3% | Medium |
| Chat quality (human preference) | – | Only Claude Fable 5.1 has an Arena rating (70 category score) | Not comparable |
| 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 | 59.8 s (Claude Fable 5 (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 (max) and Claude Fable 5.1 (max) are neck and neck on quality (69.3 vs 70.5, within the ±6.4 margin).
- Claude Fable 5 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, instruction following, knowledge.
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) is stronger in coding, composite, long context, maths, reasoning, human preference, multimodal.
- They cost about the same ($20.00 per 1M blended).
At a glance
| Spec | Claude Fable 5 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | Anthropic |
| Released | 9 Jun 2026 | 1 Sept 2026 |
| Context window (tokens) | 1,000,000 | 1,000,000 |
| Compared at | Claude Fable 5 (max) | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) |
| Open weights | No | No |
| Price in / out / cached input per 1M | $10.00 / $50.00 / $1.00 | $10.00 / $50.00 / $0.250 |
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 (max) | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 73.8 | 76.8 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Coding | 73.8 | 75.0 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Agents & tools | 65.0 | 60.2 | Claude Fable 5 |
| Maths | 72.4 | 72.9 | level |
| Knowledge | 81.0 | 77.5 | Claude Fable 5 |
| Instruction following | 63.1 | – | not comparable |
| Human preference | – | 70.0 | not comparable |
| Multimodal | – | 67.1 | not comparable |
| Long context | 66.3 | 67.8 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Composite | 85.0 | 89.2 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
Where sources disagree
Across the 38 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5 leads 8, Claude Fable 5.1 leads 30. Independent sources split: Claude Fable 5 leads on Arena Text; Claude Fable 5.1 leads on AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2.
| Overall index | Claude Fable 5 (max) | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 69.3 | 70.5 | neck and neck |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | 49.6 | 53.4 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Arena Text | 1503† | 1503 | Claude Fable 5 |
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 (max) | Claude Fable 5.1 (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 | $1.00 | $0.250 |
| 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 | $8.75 | $7.63 |
| Output speed | 70 tok/s | 68 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 59.8 s | 163.2 s |
| Time to a complete answer | 67.0 s | 170.6 s |
Per token is not per task: on Artificial Analysis' full suite Claude Fable 5 (max) cost $8.75 and Claude Fable 5.1 (max) $7.63, because Claude Fable 5 (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 (max) scores 69.3 and takes 60 s to its first answer token; Claude Fable 5 scores 67.1 in 4 s, Claude Fable 5 (high) scores 64.6 in 4 s. 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. 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
146 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 (max) | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | BenchLeader | 69.3 | 70.5 |
| Agents & tools score | BenchLeader | 65.0 | 60.2 |
| Coding score | BenchLeader | 73.8 | 75.0 |
| Composite score | BenchLeader | 85.0 | 89.2 |
| Instruction following score | BenchLeader | 63.1 | – |
| Knowledge score | BenchLeader | 81.0 | 77.5 |
| Long context score | BenchLeader | 66.3 | 67.8 |
| Maths score | BenchLeader | 72.4 | 72.9 |
| Reasoning score | BenchLeader | 73.8 | 76.8 |
| Human preference score | BenchLeader | – | 70.0 |
| Multimodal score | BenchLeader | – | 67.1 |
| Blended price $/M | BenchLeader | $20.00 | $20.00 |
| Output speed | BenchLeader | 70 tok/s | 68 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | BenchLeader | 59.8 s | 163.2 s |
| Context window | BenchLeader | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens |
| Reasoning | |||
| GPQA Diamond | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 85.9% | – |
| Humanity's Last Exam | Scale AI / CAIS | – | 46.5%† |
| SimpleBench | SimpleBench | 81.9% | – |
| Arena Hard Prompts | Arena (LMArena) | 1529† | 1523 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 89.7%† | 91.7%† |
| LiveBench 1.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 89.7% | 91.7% |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 92.6% | 93.7% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 55.5% | 59.1% |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | Vals AI | 93.2%† | 93.4%† |
| EnigmaEval | Scale AI SEAL | 39.3%† | – |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | Kagi LLM Benchmark | 88.8%† | – |
| ARC-AGI-1 | ARC Prize | 98.5% | 97.5% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | ARC Prize | 89.2% | 90.0% |
| CritPt | Artificial Analysis | 28.6% | 29.7% |
| MysteryMechanism | Vals AI | – | 47.8%† |
| Chess Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 47.0% | 48.0% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 52.0% | 58.0% |
| LMCA | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 60.3% | 65.5%† |
| DTBench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 98.4% | 97.6%† |
| ForecastBench | ForecastBench | 66.0% | – |
| BTF-3 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 13.0%† | – |
| Coding | |||
| SciCode | SciCode | 61.0% | 63.1% |
| WeirdML | WeirdML | 91.9% | 92.9% |
| FrontierCode | Cognition | 53.5%† | 50.9%† |
| GSO-Bench | GSO-Bench | 78.4%† | 88.2%† |
Show all 146 benchmarks
| Metric | Publisher | Claude Fable 5 (max) | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | |||
| Arena Coding | Arena (LMArena) | 1551† | 1538 |
| Arena WebDev | Arena (LMArena) | 1624† | 1743 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Coding | LiveBench | 98.3%† | 97.7%† |
| LiveBench 1.0 Coding | LiveBench | 86.0% | 86.4% |
| LiveCodeBench | Vals AI | 89.8%† | 90.5%† |
| IOI | Vals AI | – | 90.8%† |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | Vals AI | 95.0%† | – |
| Code Migration | Vals AI | 55.1%† | 54.6%† |
| ProgramBench | Vals AI | 2.0%† | 7.0%† |
| 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%† | 90.3%† |
| SWE Atlas: Codebase QnA | Scale AI SEAL | 39.0%† | 60.0%† |
| SWE Atlas: Refactoring | Scale AI SEAL | 54.8%† | 56.7%† |
| SWE Atlas: Test Writing | Scale AI SEAL | 55.6%† | 67.0%† |
| MirrorCode | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 63.9%† | 73.3%† |
| Surface Evolver Bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 95.0%† | – |
| DeepSWE v1.1 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 69.7% | – |
| CursorBench | Cursor | – | 51.8% |
| ALE-Bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 2041.3† | 2143.2† |
| FrontierSWE | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 47.0% | 56.3% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 42.4% | 52.0% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 84.6% | 91.4% |
| Startrise Frontend | Startrise | 73.8%† | 77.1%† |
| FrontierCode 1.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 49.0% |
| Agents & tools | |||
| Terminal-Bench | Terminal-Bench | 44.5% | 57.9% |
| Remote Labor Index | Scale AI / CAIS | 15.8%† | 17.9%† |
| APEX-Agents | Mercor | 63.6%† | 68.6%† |
| Arena Agent | Arena (LMArena) | 8.3† | 14.2 |
| LiveBench Long Agentic | LiveBench | 53.2%† | 80.8%† |
| LiveBench Browser | LiveBench | 92.0%† | 100.0%† |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | LiveBench | 62.2% | 66.1% |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | Artificial Analysis | 62.9% | – |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 98.5% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | Vals AI | 80.5%† | 85.0%† |
| MCP Atlas | Scale AI SEAL | 83.3%† | 87.2%† |
| HiL-Bench | Scale AI SEAL | 56.3%† | 61.5%† |
| τ³-bench Banking | τ²-bench | 39.7% | – |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | Artificial Analysis | – | 62.7% |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 38.1% | 47.2% |
| ITBench SRE (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 49.5% |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 48.8% | 57.5% |
| CUA-bench | Vals AI | – | 13.2% |
| CyberBench | Vals AI | – | 70.4%† |
| Finance Agent v2 | Vals AI | 56.3%† | 58.9%† |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1 | Vals AI | 11.3%† | 6.7%† |
| Legal Research Bench | Vals AI | 49.5%† | 55.3%† |
| Robo-bench | Vals AI | – | 5.8% |
| SkillsBench | Vals AI | – | 61.5%† |
| SREBench | Vals AI | – | 22.9%† |
| Tax Agent Bench | Vals AI | 38.3%† | 49.2%† |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | 41.4%† | 58.1%† |
| Terminal-Bench Science | Vals AI | 15.7%† | 40.0%† |
| Time Horizon Index: KSP | Vals AI | – | 63.3%† |
| Web Search Index | Vals AI | 46.9%† | – |
| Arena Search | Arena (LMArena) | 1229† | 1233† |
| PostTrainBench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 41.8% | – |
| GBAEval | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 74.5%† | – |
| Vending-Bench 2 | Andon Labs | 4966.6 | 5421.6† |
| AutomationBench | Artificial Analysis | 54.1% | 59.4% |
| GDP.pdf (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 24.0% | 26.2% |
| Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 | Harvey | – | 6.4% |
| EnterpriseOps-Gym | Artificial Analysis | 51.1% | – |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1537 | 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% |
| Maths | |||
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 87.0% | 90.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 90.2% | 87.8% |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 99.7% | 100.0% |
| ProofBench | Vals AI | 95.0% | 100.0% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | LiveBench | 96.0% | 97.0% |
| Arena Maths | Arena (LMArena) | 1521† | 1529 |
| Knowledge | |||
| SimpleQA Verified | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 70.7%† | 70.8% |
| LiveBench 2.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 80.5%† | 80.3%† |
| LiveBench Research | LiveBench | 86.9%† | 82.0%† |
| LiveBench 1.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 80.5% | 80.3% |
| AA-Omniscience | Artificial Analysis | 43.3 | 43.5 |
| MMLU-Pro | Vals AI | 91.5%† | 92.4%† |
| LegalBench | Vals AI | 88.6%† | 88.5%† |
| CorpFin | Vals AI | 71.8%† | – |
| TaxEval | Vals AI | 76.9%† | 76.0%† |
| PRBench Finance | Scale AI SEAL | 53.9%† | 50.8%† |
| PRBench Legal | Scale AI SEAL | 52.6%† | 51.6%† |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | Vals AI | 73.7%† | 76.7%† |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | – | 76.7%† |
| MedCode | Vals AI | 56.1%† | 53.5%† |
| MedScribe | Vals AI | 88.5%† | 91.3%† |
| Public Benefits Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 70.4%† | 74.9%† |
| EBR-bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 39.5% | 57.1% |
| GDP.pdf | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 29.8% | 27.6% |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | Artificial Analysis | 65.3% | 67.2% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | Artificial Analysis | 36.4% | 27.4% |
| Instruction following | |||
| LiveBench Language | LiveBench | 90.7% | 89.5% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | LiveBench | 75.8% | 73.0% |
| IFBench | Artificial Analysis | 63.5% | – |
| Arena Instruction Following | Arena (LMArena) | 1508† | 1501 |
| Human preference | |||
| Arena Text | Arena (LMArena) | 1503† | 1503 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | EQ-Bench | 1340† | – |
| Arena Creative Writing | Arena (LMArena) | 1501† | 1487 |
| Arena Multi-turn | Arena (LMArena) | 1517† | 1488 |
| Arena Longer Queries | Arena (LMArena) | 1522† | 1511 |
| Multimodal | |||
| Arena Vision | Arena (LMArena) | 1325† | 1320 |
| LiveBench Design | LiveBench | 84.7%† | 83.4%† |
| MMMU-Pro (Vals) | Vals AI | 89.3%† | 90.6%† |
| MortgageTax | Vals AI | 68.9%† | 70.8%† |
| SAGE | Vals AI | 51.9%† | 48.5%† |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 38.6%† | 41.9%† |
| AA-3D | Artificial Analysis | – | 1133 |
| Long context | |||
| AA-LCR | Artificial Analysis | 82.3% | 85.3% |
| Arena Document | Arena (LMArena) | 1499† | 1493 |
| MLCR | Artificial Analysis | 20.6% | 15.6% |
| Composite | |||
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 163.4† | 166.5† |
| LiveBench 2.0 | LiveBench | 83.6%† | 88.0%† |
| LiveBench 1.0 | LiveBench | 83.0% | 83.4% |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | Artificial Analysis | 49.6 | 53.4 |
| Vals RSI Index | Vals AI | 24.3% | 36.1% |
| Vals Multimodal Index | Vals AI | 74.2%† | – |
| AA Cyber Index | Artificial Analysis | – | 25.0 |
| 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 (max): 1 new result (Vals RSI Index).
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): 2 new results (Robo-bench, Vals RSI Index).
- Claude Fable 5 (max): 1 score revision.
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): 1 score revision.
- Claude Fable 5 (max): 1 new result (ForecastBench).
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): 1 score revision.
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): BenchLeader Index 70.0 → 70.6.
- Claude Fable 5 (max): 4 new results (GDPval-AA v2.1, AA-Omniscience: accuracy, AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination…).
- Claude Fable 5 (max): 1 score revision.
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): 2 score revisions.
Related comparisons
- Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude Fable 5 vs Gemini 4 Argon
- Claude Fable 5 vs Muse Wonder Full
- 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 Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 4.8 vs Claude Fable 5.1
Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for coding · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs
Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Fable 5.1: questions
- Is Claude Fable 5 better than Claude Fable 5.1?
- Claude Fable 5 (max) and Claude Fable 5.1 (max) are neck and neck on quality (69.3 vs 70.5, within the ±6.4 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 or Claude Fable 5.1, 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 better than Claude Fable 5.1 for coding?
- Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in coding (75 vs 74 on the category index, where 50 is average). On SciCode, the top shared coding benchmark, it is 61.0% for Claude Fable 5 against 63.1% for Claude Fable 5.1.
- Is Claude Fable 5 better than Claude Fable 5.1 for agents and tool use?
- Claude Fable 5 scores higher in agentic tasks (65 vs 60 on the category index, where 50 is average). On Terminal-Bench, the top shared agents & tools benchmark, it is 44.5% for Claude Fable 5 against 57.9% for Claude Fable 5.1.
- Which is better for long documents?
- Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on long-context benchmarks (68 vs 66). Both accept 1,000,000 tokens of context.
- Which has lower latency?
- Claude Fable 5 (max) answers first: 59.8 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 or Claude Fable 5.1?
- Claude Fable 5 streams faster: 70 against 68 output tokens per second.
- Do independent benchmarks agree on Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Fable 5.1?
- Across the 38 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5 leads 8, Claude Fable 5.1 leads 30. Independent sources split: Claude Fable 5 leads on Arena Text; Claude Fable 5.1 leads on AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2.
- When was Claude Fable 5.1 released?
- Claude Fable 5.1 was released on 1 Sept 2026.