AnthropicClaude Fable 5.1
Reasoning effort
Claude Fable 5.1 is an Anthropic proprietary reasoning model, released 1 Sept 2026. Its best configuration (max reasoning effort) ranks #4 of 785 on the BenchLeader Index at 70.5 ±4.8, in the top ten. The ± is the point: 46 other configurations score within that range, so they and this one cannot be told apart on quality alone — price and speed are what separate them. It scores highest in composite (89) and lowest in agents & tools (60). At $20.00 per million tokens blended it is among the most expensive ranked models. Output speed of 68 tokens per second puts it slower than most, with a first answer in 163.2 s. It has been measured at 6 reasoning-effort settings; this summary describes the best-scoring one, and the tabs above switch between them. Last measured 22 Oct 2026.
- Blended price
- $20.00/M
- $10.00 in · $50.00 out
- Output speed
- 68 tok/s
- measured by Artificial Analysis
- First answer
- 163 s
- first token 3.42 s
- Context
- 1M
- Full answer
- 171 s
- median, reasoning included
- Cost per run
- $7.63
- one full Intelligence Index run
- Released
- 1 Sept 2026
- Overall index71
- Reasoning77
- Coding75
- Agents & tools60
- Maths73
- Knowledge78
- Human preference70
- Multimodal67
- Long context68
- Composite89
Versions
Anthropic has shipped 2 models under this name. Each is ranked on its own results; a newer version often has fewer results so far, which holds its index nearer the average until more arrive.
| Model | Released | Index | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Fable 5.1maxthis page | 1 Sept 2026 | 70.5 | #4 |
| Claude Fable 5max | 9 Jun 2026 | 69.3 | #12 |
Reasoning-effort configurations
The same model behaves differently depending on how much it is allowed to think. Each row is one setting, scored only on the benchmarks that were run at that setting. “Not stated” collects results from publishers that did not say which setting they used; for a reasoning model that is usually its thinking mode, but we do not assume it. Pick a setting here or at the top of the page to see its price, speed and category scores.
| Effort | Index | Rank | Speed | First answer | Chat reply cost | Categories |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| low | 65.0 | #41 | 60 tok/s | 0.98 s | $0.019 | Agents & tools 59 · Coding 62 · Composite 82 · Knowledge 77 · Long context 66 · Reasoning 74 |
| medium | 67.3 | #25 | 59 tok/s | 3.40 s | $0.019 | Agents & tools 64 · Coding 63 · Composite 84 · Knowledge 78 · Long context 68 · Reasoning 77 |
| high | 69.4 | #11 | 60 tok/s | 19 s | $0.019 | Agents & tools 65 · Coding 72 · Composite 87 · Knowledge 80 · Long context 67 · Reasoning 78 |
| xhigh | 69.5 | #9 | 65 tok/s | 54 s | $0.019 | Agents & tools 68 · Coding 69 · Composite 89 · Knowledge 81 · Long context 67 · Reasoning 79 |
| maxbest | 70.5 | #4 | 68 tok/s | 163 s | $0.019 | Agents & tools 60 · Coding 75 · Composite 89 · Human preference 70 · Knowledge 78 · Long context 68 · Maths 73 · Multimodal 67 · Reasoning 77 |
| not stated | 66.4 | #33 | 61 tok/s | 3.42 s | $0.019 | Agents & tools 69 · Coding 73 · Composite 73 · Knowledge 65 |
What more thinking costs
Turning the effort up buys index points and multiplies the bill. Here max costs 3.2× low for +5.5 on the index — 3.3 points per doubling of spend. Compare that with other models.
How its index has moved
8 Sept 2026 to 23 Oct 2026- max
- xhigh
- high
- medium
The index is recomputed from scratch every day, so a line moves when a new benchmark result lands, when a publisher revises a score, or when the models it is normalised against change. Early movement usually means the score is still settling.
Benchmark results
See all LLM benchmarks. One column per reasoning effort. Rank is among every configuration of every model on that benchmark. Hover a score for the run it came from.
Reasoning
| Benchmark | low | medium | high | xhigh | max | not stated | Source | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Humanity's Last Exam | – | – | – | 46.5%#2 | – | – | Scale AI / CAIS | |
| Arena Hard Prompts | – | – | – | – | 1523#7 | – | Arena (LMArena) | |
| LiveBench 2.0 Reasoningnot in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 91.7%#5 | LiveBench | |
| LiveBench 1.0 Reasoningnot in index | – | – | – | – | 91.7%#4 | – | LiveBench | |
| GPQA Diamond (AA)not in index | 88.1%#93 | 88.6%#89 | 90.6%#58 | 93.4%#21 | 93.7%#11 | – | Artificial Analysis | |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA)not in index | 48.9%#31 | 53.8%#15 | 55.9%#6 | 58.7%#3 | 59.1%#2 | – | Artificial Analysis | |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals)not in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 93.4%#7 | Vals AI | |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 90.0%#80 | 94.5%#39 | 96.0%#31 | 96.5%#23 | 97.5%#12 | – | ARC Prize | |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 78.3%#41 | 86.3%#27 | 88.8%#20 | 90.0%#14 | 90.0%#14 | – | ARC Prize | |
| CritPt | 27.7%#29 | 29.1%#20 | 30.3%#15 | 31.1%#10 | 29.7%#19 | – | Artificial Analysis | |
| MysteryMechanismnot in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 47.8%#4 | Vals AI | |
| Chess Puzzlesnot in index | – | – | – | – | 48.0%#19 | – | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | |
| Mystery Game Puzzlesnot in index | – | – | – | – | 58.0%#7 | – | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | |
| LMCAnot in index | 63.5%#21 | 65.3%#10 | 65.1%#11 | 65.1%#12 | – | 65.5%#8 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | |
| DTBenchnot in index | 94.1%#58 | 97.1%#17 | 96.5%#22 | 97.6%#5 | – | 97.6%#5 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub |
Coding
| Benchmark | low | medium | high | xhigh | max | not stated | Source | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 55.7%#45 | 55.3%#49 | 57.6%#26 | 60.9%#7 | 63.1%#3 | – | SciCode | |
| WeirdML | – | – | 92.3%#5 | – | 92.9%#3 | – | WeirdML | |
| FrontierCode | – | 50.9%#6 | – | – | – | – | Cognition | |
| GSO-Bencheffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 88.2%#1 | GSO-Bench | |
| Arena Coding | – | – | – | – | 1538#13 | – | Arena (LMArena) | |
| Arena WebDev | – | – | – | – | 1743#5 | – | Arena (LMArena) | |
| LiveBench 2.0 Codingnot in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 97.7%#2 | LiveBench | |
| LiveBench 1.0 Codingnot in index | – | – | – | – | 86.4%#5 | – | LiveBench | |
| SciCode (AA)not in index | 56.7%#36 | 56.4%#40 | 58.7%#21 | 60.9%#8 | 63.1%#3 | – | Artificial Analysis | |
| LiveCodeBencheffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 90.5%#1 | Vals AI | |
| IOIeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 90.8%#6 | Vals AI | |
| Code Migrationnot in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 54.6%#11 | Vals AI | |
| ProgramBenchnot in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 7.0%#2 | Vals AI | |
| SWE-bench Multimodalnot in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 61.3%#2 | Vals AI | |
| Vibe Code Bench 1-100not in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 28.0%#4 | Vals AI | |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1not in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 90.3%#6 | Vals AI | |
| SWE Atlas: Codebase QnAnot in index | – | – | – | 60.0%#2 | – | – | Scale AI SEAL | |
| SWE Atlas: Refactoringnot in index | – | – | – | 56.7%#2 | – | – | Scale AI SEAL | |
| SWE Atlas: Test Writingnot in index | – | – | – | 67.0%#1 | – | – | Scale AI SEAL | |
| MirrorCodenot in index | – | – | 73.3%#2 | – | – | – | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | |
| CursorBenchnot in index | 45.1%#24 | 46.8%#18 | 49.2%#13 | 51.6%#10 | 51.8%#9 | – | Cursor | |
| ALE-Benchnot in index | – | – | 2143.2#7 | – | – | – | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | |
| FrontierSWEnot in index | – | – | – | – | 56.3%#4 | – | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA)not in index | 40.4%#31 | 45.0%#25 | 52.0%#16 | 55.0%#12 | 52.0%#16 | – | Artificial Analysis | |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA)not in index | 85.0%#26 | 88.0%#12 | 89.9%#3 | 91.0%#2 | 91.4%#1 | – | Artificial Analysis | |
| Startrise Frontendnot in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 77.1%#6 | Startrise | |
| FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)not in index | – | – | – | – | 49.0%#6 | – | Artificial Analysis |
Agents & tools
| Benchmark | low | medium | high | xhigh | max | not stated | Source | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 43.3%#44 | 53.9%#27 | 54.5%#25 | 57.9%#19 | 57.9%#19 | – | Terminal-Bench | |
| Remote Labor Indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 17.9%#3 | Scale AI / CAIS | |
| APEX-Agents | – | – | 59.7%#13 | – | – | 68.6%#4 | Mercor | |
| Arena Agent | – | – | – | – | 14.2#3 | – | Arena (LMArena) | |
| LiveBench Long Agenticnot in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 80.8%#3 | LiveBench | |
| LiveBench Browsernot in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 100.0%#1 | LiveBench | |
| LiveBench Agentic Codingnot in index | – | – | – | – | 66.1%#3 | – | LiveBench | |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)effort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 85.0%#4 | Vals AI | |
| MCP Atlaseffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 87.2%#2 | Scale AI SEAL | |
| HiL-Bencheffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 61.5%#6 | Scale AI SEAL | |
| GDPval-AA v2.1not in index | 48.4%#39 | 52.2%#33 | 56.8%#19 | 61.6%#9 | 62.7%#7 | – | Artificial Analysis | |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | 39.0%#34 | 41.0%#27 | 43.1%#21 | 45.8%#12 | 47.2%#8 | – | Artificial Analysis | |
| ITBench SRE (AA)not in index | – | – | – | – | 49.5%#6 | – | Artificial Analysis | |
| Analyst Agent (AA)not in index | – | – | – | – | 57.5%#2 | – | Artificial Analysis | |
| CUA-benchnot in index | – | – | – | – | 13.2%#3 | – | Vals AI | |
| CyberBenchnot in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 70.4%#21 | Vals AI | |
| Finance Agent v2not in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 58.9%#9 | Vals AI | |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1not in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 6.7%#30 | Vals AI | |
| Legal Research Benchnot in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 55.3%#1 | Vals AI | |
| Robo-benchnot in index | – | – | – | – | 5.8%#5 | – | Vals AI | |
| SkillsBenchnot in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 61.5%#6 | Vals AI | |
| SREBenchnot in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 22.9%#9 | Vals AI | |
| Tax Agent Benchnot in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 49.2%#2 | Vals AI | |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals)not in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 58.1%#4 | Vals AI | |
| Terminal-Bench Sciencenot in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 40.0%#6 | Vals AI | |
| Time Horizon Index: KSPnot in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 63.3%#3 | Vals AI | |
| Arena Searchnot in index | – | – | 1233#4 | – | – | – | Arena (LMArena) | |
| Vending-Bench 2not in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 5421.6#27 | Andon Labs | |
| AutomationBenchnot in index | 52.2%#73 | 54.7%#61 | 55.3%#57 | 57.8%#48 | 59.4%#41 | – | Artificial Analysis | |
| GDP.pdf (AA)not in index | 28.0%#14 | 26.8%#19 | 26.8%#19 | 26.2%#23 | 26.2%#23 | – | Artificial Analysis | |
| Harvey LAB-AA v1.1not in index | – | – | – | – | 6.4%#7 | – | Harvey | |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1not in index | – | – | – | 1651#11 | 1671#8 | – | Artificial Analysis | |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)not in index | – | – | – | – | 43.3%#11 | – | Artificial Analysis | |
| CWE-Bench (AA) | – | – | – | – | 50.8%#15 | – | Artificial Analysis | |
| DeepSec-Bench (AA) | – | – | – | – | 23.5%#12 | – | Artificial Analysis | |
| CyberGym end-to-end (AA) | – | – | – | – | 0.8%#16 | – | Artificial Analysis |
Maths
| Benchmark | max | Source | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | 90.2%#4 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8%#9 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 100.0%#1 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | |
| ProofBench | 100.0%#1 | Vals AI | |
| LiveBench Mathematicsnot in index | 97.0%#2 | LiveBench | |
| Arena Maths | 1529#2 | Arena (LMArena) |
Knowledge
| Benchmark | low | medium | high | xhigh | max | not stated | Source | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SimpleQA Verified | – | – | – | – | 70.8%#6 | – | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | |
| LiveBench 2.0 Data Analysisnot in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 80.3%#8 | LiveBench | |
| LiveBench Researchnot in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 82.0%#14 | LiveBench | |
| LiveBench 1.0 Data Analysisnot in index | – | – | – | – | 80.3%#9 | – | LiveBench | |
| AA-Omniscience | 34.1#24 | 37.6#21 | 40.8#14 | 42.4#8 | 43.5#3 | – | Artificial Analysis | |
| MMLU-Proeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 92.4%#1 | Vals AI | |
| LegalBencheffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 88.5%#2 | Vals AI | |
| TaxEvaleffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 76.0%#8 | Vals AI | |
| PRBench Financeeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 50.8%#9 | Scale AI SEAL | |
| PRBench Legaleffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 51.6%#8 | Scale AI SEAL | |
| Excel Modeling Benchmarknot in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 76.7%#1 | Vals AI | |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1not in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 76.7%#1 | Vals AI | |
| MedCodenot in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 53.5%#8 | Vals AI | |
| MedScribenot in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 91.3%#2 | Vals AI | |
| Public Benefits Bench v1.1not in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 74.9%#2 | Vals AI | |
| EBR-benchnot in index | – | – | – | – | 57.1%#4 | – | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | |
| GDP.pdfnot in index | – | – | 29.6%#10 | – | 27.6%#12 | – | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracynot in index | 60.2%#20 | 63.1%#10 | 64.9%#6 | 66.2%#2 | 67.2%#1 | – | Artificial Analysis | |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucinationnot in index | 34.4%#191 | 30.9%#219 | 31.2%#216 | 29.4%#225 | 27.4%#229 | – | Artificial Analysis |
Instruction following
| Benchmark | max | Source | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Languagenot in index | 89.5%#3 | LiveBench | |
| LiveBench Instruction Followingnot in index | 73.0%#18 | LiveBench | |
| Arena Instruction Followingnot in index | 1501#6 | Arena (LMArena) |
Human preference
| Benchmark | max | Source | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arena Text | 1503#5 | Arena (LMArena) | |
| Arena Creative Writingnot in index | 1487#8 | Arena (LMArena) | |
| Arena Multi-turnnot in index | 1488#25 | Arena (LMArena) | |
| Arena Longer Queriesnot in index | 1511#7 | Arena (LMArena) |
Multimodal
| Benchmark | max | not stated | Source | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arena Vision | 1320#4 | – | Arena (LMArena) | |
| LiveBench Designnot in indexeffort not stated | – | 83.4%#4 | LiveBench | |
| MMMU-Pro (Vals)not in indexeffort not stated | – | 90.6%#1 | Vals AI | |
| MortgageTaxnot in indexeffort not stated | – | 70.8%#2 | Vals AI | |
| SAGEnot in indexeffort not stated | – | 48.5%#27 | Vals AI | |
| Blueprint-Bench 2not in indexeffort not stated | – | 41.9%#4 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | |
| AA-3Dnot in index | 1133#5 | – | Artificial Analysis |
Long context
| Benchmark | low | medium | high | xhigh | max | Source | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AA-LCR | 82.3%#41 | 84.7%#6 | 83.7%#16 | 83.0%#26 | 85.3%#5 | Artificial Analysis | |
| Arena Documentnot in index | – | – | – | – | 1493#6 | Arena (LMArena) | |
| MLCRnot in index | 18.3%#59 | 9.4%#119 | 15.6%#72 | 13.3%#90 | 15.6%#72 | Artificial Analysis |
Composite
| Benchmark | low | medium | high | xhigh | max | not stated | Source | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Indexnot in indexeffort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 166.5#4 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | |
| LiveBench 2.0effort not stated | – | – | – | – | – | 88.0%#1 | LiveBench | |
| LiveBench 1.0not in index | – | – | – | – | 83.4%#1 | – | LiveBench | |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | 46.8#30 | 48.9#24 | 51.1#16 | 53.2#8 | 53.4#7 | – | Artificial Analysis | |
| Vals RSI Indexnot in index | – | – | – | – | 36.1%#2 | – | Vals AI | |
| AA Cyber Indexnot in index | – | – | – | – | 25.0#17 | – | Artificial Analysis |
Safety & honesty
| Benchmark | not stated | Source | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|
| FORTRESSnot in index | 13.7%#56 | Scale AI SEAL |
Where it wins
Benchmarks where this configuration ranks in the top five of every configuration measured.
- #1OTIS Mock AIME100.0% · of 276
- #1ProofBench100.0% · of 78
- #2Arena Maths1529 · of 362
- #3SciCode63.1% · of 216
- #3WeirdML92.9% · of 156
- #3Arena Agent14.2 · of 50
- #3AA-Omniscience43.5 · of 552
- #4FrontierMath Tiers 1–390.2% · of 118
- #4Arena Vision1320 · of 159
- #5Arena Text1503 · of 373
- #5Arena WebDev1743 · of 138
- #5AA-LCR85.3% · of 548
Where to run it
Every provider serving this model through OpenRouter, with throughput and first-token latency measured on live traffic over the last 30 minutes and each provider’s own price. Purple marks the best in each column.
| Provider | Speed | First token | Input $/M | Output $/M | Context | Quantisation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Google Vertex | 75 tok/s | 4.21 s | $10.00 | $50.00 | 1M | – |
| Anthropic | 56 tok/s | 3.74 s | $10.00 | $50.00 | 1M | – |
| Amazon Bedrock (BYOK Only) | 39 tok/s | 7.93 s | $10.00 | $50.00 | 1M | – |
What a task costs
Estimates from list price, output speed and time to first answer for the best configuration. “With caching” assumes three-quarters of the input is served from the prompt cache at $0.250 per 1M. Reasoning tokens are not modelled.
| Workload | Tokens in / out | Cost | With caching | Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chat reply | 400 / 300 | $0.019 | $0.016 | 2.8 min |
| Summarize a 30-page report | 12,000 / 600 | $0.150 | $0.062 | 2.9 min |
| Code edit | 6,000 / 1,500 | $0.135 | $0.091 | 3.1 min |
| Agentic coding session | 60,000 / 4,000 | $0.800 | $0.361 | 3.7 min |
| Structured extraction | 2,000 / 200 | $0.030 | $0.015 | 2.8 min |
More from Anthropic
Compare Claude Fable 5.1 with…
- 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 Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6.1 Sol
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Fable 5
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 5
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-5.6 Sol
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Wonder
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark 1.3
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Sol
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-5.5
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-5.5 Pro
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-5.4
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K3
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-5.6 Terra
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Grok 4.6
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Grok 4.7
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-5.3-Codex
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM 5.3
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.8 Max
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 4.7
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 4.8
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-5.4 Pro
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark 1.2
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 4.6
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM 5.3 Flash
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark 1.1
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM 5.2
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.6 Max
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark Open
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Haiku 5.5
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-5.2
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.7
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3 Pro
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Step 5 Preview
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Sonnet 5
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Luna
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 4.5
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-5.6 Luna
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-5 Pro
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro 0424
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs o3
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash
See also
Questions people ask
- What are Claude Fable 5.1's benchmark scores?
- As of 24 Oct 2026, Claude Fable 5.1 (max effort) scores 70.5 ±4.8 on the BenchLeader Index, top 10, strongest in composite (89) and weakest in agents & tools (60). That rests on 25 independent benchmark results, and every score on this page links to its publisher.
- How does Claude Fable 5.1 rank?
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max effort) is #4 of 785 ranked configurations on 24 Oct 2026 (top 10). 46 other configurations score within its margin, so the exact position matters less than the band. The leader is Claude Opus 5.5 (max effort) at 72.6.
- How much does Claude Fable 5.1 cost per 1M tokens?
- As of 24 Oct 2026, Claude Fable 5.1 costs $10.00 per 1M input tokens and $50.00 per 1M output tokens, $20.00 blended (three input tokens per output token).
- Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than GPT-6 Astra?
- 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. The head-to-head page has the benchmark-by-benchmark detail.
- When was Claude Fable 5.1 released?
- Anthropic released Claude Fable 5.1 on 1 Sept 2026. BenchLeader has results for it at 6 reasoning-effort settings.
Data as of 24 Oct 2026. Compare these configurations.
Cite as: BenchLeader, “Claude Fable 5.1: benchmarks, pricing, speed and rank”, data as of 24 Oct 2026, https://www.benchleader.com/models/claude-fable-5-1.