Claude Fable 5 vs GLM 5.1
Claude Fable 5 
GLM 5.1 Verdict
- Claude Fable 5 leads on quality: 70.5 vs 60.2.
- Claude Fable 5 is stronger in agents & tools, coding, composite, human preference, knowledge, long context, multimodal, reasoning.
- GLM 5.1 is stronger in instruction following, maths.
- GLM 5.1 is 9.3× cheaper ($2.15 vs $20.00 per 1M blended).
| Metric | Claude Fable 5 | GLM 5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 70.5 | 60.2 |
| Agents & tools score | 74.4 | 56.8 |
| Coding score | 70.5 | 57.3 |
| Composite score | 91.8 | 62.4 |
| Human preference score | 71.6 | 66.6 |
| Instruction following score | 62.9 | 73.9 |
| Knowledge score | 71.4 | 56.6 |
| Long context score | 67.8 | 63.3 |
| Multimodal score | 69.7 | – |
| Reasoning score | 75.9 | 61.4 |
| Maths score | – | 53.0 |
| Blended price $/M | $20.00 | $2.15 |
| Output speed | 63 tok/s | 65 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 102.3 s | 60.1 s |
| Context window | 1M | 200k |
| GPQA Diamond | – | 89.9% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | – | 36.8% |
| OTIS Mock AIME | – | 93.3% |
| SWE-bench Verified (Epoch) | – | 74.2% |
| SimpleQA Verified | – | 34.0% |
| SimpleBench | – | 55.1% |
| SciCode | – | 43.8% |
| Remote Labor Index | 16.1% | – |
| WeirdML | – | 57.1% |
| APEX-Agents | 45.0% | – |
| FrontierCode | 53.5% | – |
| ProofBench | – | 22.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 163.4 | 149.7 |
| LMArena Text | 1507 | 1466 |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1533 | 1489 |
| LMArena Coding | 1551 | 1514 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1628 | 1508 |
| LMArena Vision | 1330 | – |
| AA Intelligence Index | 49.7 | 26.4 |
| IFBench | 63.5% | 76.3% |
| AA-LCR | 82.3% | 73.7% |
| AA-Omniscience | 43.3 | 0.8 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | 62.9% | 43.2% |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 92.6% | 86.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 55.5% | 30.1% |
| SciCode (AA) | 61.0% | 44.8% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | 98.5% | 97.7% |
| AIME (Vals) | – | 91.9% |
| LiveCodeBench | 89.8% | 81.4% |
| MMLU-Pro | 91.5% | 86.9% |
| IOI | 72.3% | – |
| LegalBench | 88.6% | 84.4% |
| CorpFin | 71.8% | 64.5% |
| TaxEval | 76.9% | 71.2% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | 80.5% | 56.9% |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | 95.0% | 76.4% |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | 93.2% | 84.5% |
| Vals Index | 66.0 | – |
| AIME 2026 | – | 95.8% |
| HMMT February 2026 | – | 89.4% |
| MathArena Apex | – | 11.5% |
| MCP Atlas | 83.3% | 75.6% |
| PRBench Finance | 53.9% | – |
| PRBench Legal | 52.6% | – |
| HiL-Bench | 56.3% | – |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1340 | – |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 88.8% | – |
Data as of 2026-09-10. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Claude Fable 5 vs GLM 5.1: questions
- Is Claude Fable 5 better than GLM 5.1?
- Claude Fable 5 leads on quality: 70.5 vs 60.2. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Fable 5 is ahead overall as of 2026-09-10, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is Claude Fable 5 better than GLM 5.1 for coding?
- Claude Fable 5 scores higher in coding (71 vs 57 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Is Claude Fable 5 better than GLM 5.1 for agentic tasks?
- Claude Fable 5 scores higher in agentic tasks (74 vs 57 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5 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 or GLM 5.1?
- GLM 5.1 streams faster: 65 against 63 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Claude Fable 5 accepts more context: 1M against 200k tokens.