Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Mistral Large 3
Anthropic against Mistral, compared on context, price, and attributed benchmark results.
Recorded profile verification October 2, 2026Individual provider fields may changeEvidence confidence: Medium — see receipts below
Anthropic
Claude Fable 5.1
Frontier
Mistral
Mistral Large 3
Frontier · Open weights
| Specification | Claude Fable 5.1 | Mistral Large 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | ||
| Provider | Anthropic | Mistral |
| Tier | ||
| Tier | Frontier | Frontier |
| Context window | ||
| Context window | Winner: 1M | 262K |
| Max output | ||
| Max output | 128K | Not verifiedUnverified |
| Input / 1M tokens | ||
| Input / 1M tokens | $10 | Winner: $0.50 |
| Output / 1M tokens | ||
| Output / 1M tokens | $50 | Winner: $1.50 |
| Weights | ||
| Weights | Closed | Open |
| Parameters | ||
| Parameters | Not verifiedUnverified | 675B total / 41B active (sparse MoE) |
| Reasoning levels | ||
| Reasoning levels | low, medium, high, xhigh, max | Not verifiedUnverified |
| Modalities | ||
| Modalities | text, image | text, image |
| License | ||
| License | Not verifiedUnverified | Apache 2.0 |
| API model id | ||
| API model id | claude-fable-5-1 | mistral-large-2512 |
| Released | ||
| Released | September 1, 2026 | December 2, 2025 |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index [max] · source date Claude Fable 5.1: 2026-10-01 | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index [max] · source date Claude Fable 5.1: 2026-10-01 | 53 | Not verifiedUnverified |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index · source date Mistral Large 3: 2026-10-01 | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index · source date Mistral Large 3: 2026-10-01 | Not verifiedUnverified | 9 |
| Humanity's Last Exam · source date Claude Fable 5.1: 2026-09-01 | ||
| Humanity's Last Exam · source date Claude Fable 5.1: 2026-09-01 | 65 | Not verifiedUnverified |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 · source date Claude Fable 5.1: 2026-09-26 | ||
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 · source date Claude Fable 5.1: 2026-09-26 | 91.4 | Not verifiedUnverified |
| DeepSWE 1.1 · source date Claude Fable 5.1: 2026-09-03 | ||
| DeepSWE 1.1 · source date Claude Fable 5.1: 2026-09-03 | 67.4 | Not verifiedUnverified |
| GPQA Diamond · source date Mistral Large 3: 2026-09-26 | ||
| GPQA Diamond · source date Mistral Large 3: 2026-09-26 | Not verifiedUnverified | 68 |
Dates beside benchmark scores refer to the linked source’s publication or capture date unless that source explicitly states when it measured the result. A shared URL alone does not establish comparable runs; unverified setups are marked. Prices are USD per million tokens at standard rates, excluding batch and caching discounts. Values we could not confirm from the provider are shown as “Not verified” rather than estimated.
Benchmark receipts
Where each score comes from, and how far it can be compared across models.
- Source date2026-10-01Artificial Analysis (Mistral Large 3)
Composite index blending reasoning, knowledge, and coding evals into one 0–100 score.
Comparable with caveatOnly same-version scores are comparable. v4.3.2 was rebaselined (the top score fell from 66 on v4.1.1 to ~58), so v4.1.1 figures must not be compared with v4.3.2 figures — check the cited source and its date.
- Source date2026-10-01Artificial Analysis (Claude Fable 5.1 (max with fallback))
Composite index blending reasoning, knowledge, and coding evals into one 0–100 score.
Comparable with caveatOnly same-version scores are comparable. v4.3.2 was rebaselined (the top score fell from 66 on v4.1.1 to ~58), so v4.1.1 figures must not be compared with v4.3.2 figures — check the cited source and its date.
- Source date2026-09-26Artificial Analysis GPQA Diamond (independent; replaces Mistral's non-comparable base-model 5-shot 43.9)
Graduate-level science reasoning: multiple-choice questions written by domain PhDs.
Comparable with caveatDo not treat a fixed two-point band as universal measurement uncertainty; it depends on run count and evaluation setup. Chain-of-thought, prompt, and tool policy must match. The small pool limits fine-grained conclusions, and frontier scores can be near ceiling; Artificial Analysis dropped it from its Intelligence Index in v4.3.
- Source date2026-09-26Artificial Analysis Terminal-Bench 2.1 (independent, Terminus 2, max effort)
Agentic terminal work: multi-step tasks executed in a sandboxed shell environment.
Comparable with caveatNot comparable with Terminal-Bench 3.0 or 4.0 (different task sets) or v1; harness configuration (container, time limits) also shifts results.
- Source date2026-09-03OpenAI GPT-6 Astra launch table quoting a cross-provider result; not a direct Datacurve row (Cross-provider quotation; Fable harness, effort and experiment date unverified)
Agentic software engineering: pass@1 on real repo tasks with reported cost per completed task.
Directly comparable
- Source date2026-09-01Anthropic Fable 5.1 announcement (vendor, with tools; 60.9 no tools) — Anthropic's later Opus 5.5 table lists 65.6; conflict preserved
Frontier-knowledge ceiling: extremely hard multi-domain questions written to be near-impossible without deep expertise.
Comparable with caveatSubset/tool configurations (text-only vs with-tools) differ between vendors and materially change scores; must match configuration to compare.
Pricing tiers
Claude Fable 5.1: Standard $10/$50 per MTok with no long-context surcharge. Cache reads $0.25, versus Fable 5's $1; 5-minute writes $12.50 and 1-hour writes $20. Batch $5/$25. US-only inference adds 10% where supported. Adaptive thinking is always on, default effort high; knowledge cutoff Jun 2026. Retirement not sooner than September 1, 2027.
Mistral Large 3: Mistral first-party API $0.50/$1.50 per MTok; cached input $0.05. The 675B-total / 41B-active multimodal checkpoint declares Apache 2.0. Regional hosting is endpoint-specific.
Claude Fable 5.1
Claude Fable 5.1 is Anthropic's model for the most demanding reasoning and long-horizon agentic work at $10/$50 — Anthropic now recommends Opus 5.5 as the default for most workloads.
Best for
- Frontier agents
- Hardest reasoning work
- Fable 5 workloads at the same price
Watch out
Standard token rates are 2.5x Opus 5.5's. Forced tool use errors; thinking blocks are model/conversation-bound, so editing earlier turns or switching models can invalidate them. Display updates and per-message effort are beta. Match benchmark settings and evaluate pinned workloads before migrating.
Mistral Large 3
Mistral's December 2025 multimodal 675B/41B sparse MoE with a 256K context; Medium 3.5 is a separate dense model with configurable reasoning.
Best for
- Open-weight deployments
- Multimodal EU-hosted inference
- Balanced frontier work
Watch out
The publisher describes Large 3 as not a dedicated reasoning model and documents vision limitations. It advertises FP8 deployment on a B200/H200 node or a separate NVFP4 checkpoint on H100/A100 nodes; this is not a guarantee for every serving setup. A separate hard output cap is not verified. Confirm regional residency on the actual endpoint.
When the cheaper one wins
Mistral Large 3 is cheaper on output at $1.50 per million tokens against $50 for Claude Fable 5.1 — about 33×. Use the cheaper tier for classification, extraction, summarisation, and any task where the expensive model’s extra score does not change the accepted output. The expensive one only pays if your hardest task actually fails on the cheap tier. This compares standard short-context token rates, not total cost per accepted task. Include input, cache, context tiers, schedules, retries and review in your pilot.
Run the model pickerEvidence confidence: Medium
How strong and complete the evidence behind this comparison is — not a prediction of which model is better.
- Pricing verified on both sides — Input and output rates are verified for both models.
- 2/5 core specs verified on both sides — Not published for at least one side: max output, parameter count, reasoning levels.
- No directly aligned benchmark setup — No benchmark has matching cited sources, source dates, units, effort and recorded run details on both models.
- Verified within the last 90 days — Older of the two catalog checks was 25 days ago.
- Both models carry source citations — Each side has at least two catalog sources on record.
Source receipts
Each catalog figure was checked against the provider or an independent second source on the date shown.
- Claude Fable 5.1: Claude model overview — whole-profile source check October 1 (accessed 2026-10-01)
- Claude Fable 5.1: Claude current API pricing, caching and inference geography (accessed 2026-10-01)
- Claude Fable 5.1: Anthropic pricing — Fable 5.1/Mythos 5.1 $10/$50 (accessed 2026-09-03)
- Claude Fable 5.1: Anthropic models overview — Fable 5.1 (1M context, 128K output) (accessed 2026-09-03)
- Claude Fable 5.1: Anthropic — Claude Fable and Mythos 5.1 announcement (accessed 2026-09-26)
- Claude Fable 5.1: Anthropic models overview — Opus 5.5 default; Fable 5.1 for demanding reasoning (accessed 2026-09-26)
- Claude Fable 5.1: Anthropic effort documentation (Fable 5.1 selectable effort) (accessed 2026-10-01)
- Mistral Large 3: Current Mistral Large 3 API card (GA) (accessed 2026-10-01)
- Mistral Large 3: Mistral pricing and exact cache rate (accessed 2026-10-01)
- Mistral Large 3: Mistral Large 3 announcement (accessed 2026-10-01)
- Mistral Large 3: Mistral changelog: identifier and release (accessed 2026-10-01)
- Mistral Large 3: Large 3 official instruct checkpoint and Apache declaration (accessed 2026-10-01)
Related comparisons
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Haiku 4.5
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Mythos 5.1
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 5
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Sonnet 5
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5
Diving deeper on one model? Claude Fable 5.1 · Mistral Large 3
Common questions
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Mistral Large 3
Answered from the verified figures on this page rather than general guidance.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Mistral Large 3 cheaper for input?
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Mistral Large 3 cheaper for output?
Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5.1 or Mistral Large 3?
Should I use Claude Fable 5.1 or Mistral Large 3?
Can I self-host Claude Fable 5.1 or Mistral Large 3?
Next step
Choosing between them
The verified figures that separate this pair, computed from the catalog rather than restated boilerplate.
- Input price: Mistral Large 3 costs $0.50 per 1M tokens versus $10 for Claude Fable 5.1 — a 20x difference at the headline tier.
- Context: Claude Fable 5.1 takes 1M against 262K for Mistral Large 3 — only decisive if your prompts approach the smaller window.
- Deployment: Mistral Large 3 publishes weights you can self-host; the other is API-only.
Choosing a harness rather than a model — Cursor, Copilot, Claude Code, Windsurf, or Lovable? Compare agentic harnesses · Latest releases.