Model comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Fable 5.1
Two Anthropic tiers compared on the figures that decide which one a workload actually needs.
Claude Fable 5: profile checked October 25, 2026Claude Fable 5.1: profile checked October 25, 2026Individual provider fields may changeEvidence confidence: Medium — see receipts below
Anthropic
Claude Fable 5
Frontier
Anthropic
Claude Fable 5.1
Frontier
| Specification | Claude Fable 5 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | ||
| Provider | Anthropic | Anthropic |
| Tier | ||
| Tier | Frontier | Frontier |
| Context window | ||
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | ||
| Max output | 128K | 128K |
| Input / 1M tokens | ||
| Input / 1M tokens | $10 | $10 |
| Output / 1M tokens | ||
| Output / 1M tokens | $50 | $50 |
| Weights | ||
| Weights | Closed | Closed |
| Parameters | ||
| Parameters | Not verifiedUnverified | Not verifiedUnverified |
| Reasoning levels | ||
| Reasoning levels | low, medium, high, xhigh, max | low, medium, high, xhigh, max |
| Modalities | ||
| Modalities | text, image | text, image |
| API model id | ||
| API model id | claude-fable-5 | claude-fable-5-1 |
| Released | ||
| Released | June 9, 2026 | September 1, 2026 |
| 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 | Not verifiedUnverified | 53 |
| 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 | Not verifiedUnverified | 65 |
| 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 | Not verifiedUnverified | 91.4 |
| DeepSWE 1.1 · source date Claude Fable 5.1: 2026-09-03 | ||
| DeepSWE 1.1 · source date Claude Fable 5.1: 2026-09-03 | Not verifiedUnverified | 67.4 |
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 (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 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: Standard USD/MTok input/output $10/$50 with no long-context surcharge; cache reads $1, 5-minute writes $12.50, 1-hour writes $20. Batch $5/$25. US-only inference adds 10% to input/output and cache reads/writes on Anthropic-operated routes where supported; Foundry uses US Data Zone Standard. Bedrock and Google-managed Google Cloud have independent regional prices. Adaptive thinking is always on; default effort high. Knowledge cutoff January 2026; retirement not sooner than June 9, 2027. Historical access suspension June 12 and restoration July 1, 2026 remain separate events. Server-side tools can add usage fees; tool schemas/results and thinking consume billable tokens.
Claude Fable 5.1: Standard USD/MTok input/output $10/$50 with no long-context surcharge; cache reads $0.25 versus Fable 5's $1, 5-minute writes $12.50, 1-hour writes $20. Batch $5/$25. US-only inference adds 10% to input/output and cache reads/writes on Anthropic-operated routes where supported; Foundry uses US Data Zone Standard. Bedrock and Google-managed Google Cloud have independent regional prices. Adaptive thinking is always on; default effort high. Knowledge cutoff June 2026; retirement not sooner than September 1, 2027. Server-side tools can add usage fees; tool schemas/results and thinking consume billable tokens.
Claude Fable 5
Claude Fable 5 is Anthropic's June 2026 long-running-agent model, now 'Active (legacy)' behind Fable 5.1 at the same $10/$50 price.
Best for
- Long-running agents
- Frontier reasoning
- Enterprise work
Watch out
Superseded: Fable 5.1 has the same base input/output prices and lower cache-read pricing ($0.25 vs $1 per million tokens). Savings depend on eligible cached requests; evaluate the successor against your pinned workloads.
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.
When the cheaper one wins
Both charge $50 per million output tokens at standard rates, so output price is not the split. Prefer the row whose “best for” line matches the job, then confirm the live vendor rate.
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.
- 4/5 core specs verified on both sides — Not published for at least one side: parameter count.
- 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 1 day 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: Whole-record source check: exact model card (accessed 2026-10-25)
- Claude Fable 5: Whole-record source check: current publisher pricing, controls or access terms (accessed 2026-10-25)
- Claude Fable 5: Whole-record source check: current publisher pricing, controls or access terms (accessed 2026-10-25)
- Claude Fable 5: Whole-record source check: current publisher pricing, controls or access terms (accessed 2026-10-25)
- Claude Fable 5: Anthropic news — Claude Fable 5 (accessed 2026-08-29)
- Claude Fable 5.1: Whole-record source check: exact model card (accessed 2026-10-25)
- Claude Fable 5.1: Whole-record source check: current publisher pricing, controls or access terms (accessed 2026-10-25)
- Claude Fable 5.1: Whole-record source check: current publisher pricing, controls or access terms (accessed 2026-10-25)
- Claude Fable 5.1: Whole-record source check: current publisher pricing, controls or access terms (accessed 2026-10-25)
- 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)
Related comparisons
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Haiku 4.5
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Haiku 5.5
- 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
Diving deeper on one model? Claude Fable 5 · Claude Fable 5.1
Common questions
Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Fable 5.1
Answered from the verified figures on this page rather than general guidance.
Is Claude Fable 5 or Claude Fable 5.1 cheaper for input?
Is Claude Fable 5 or Claude Fable 5.1 cheaper for output?
Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5 or Claude Fable 5.1?
Do Claude Fable 5 and Claude Fable 5.1 support the same reasoning levels?
Should I use Claude Fable 5 or Claude Fable 5.1?
Next step
Choosing between them
The verified figures that separate this pair, computed from the catalog rather than restated boilerplate.
These two models match on every verified catalog figure — the decision comes down to provider preference, availability, and workload fit rather than published numbers.
Choosing a harness rather than a model — Cursor, Copilot, Claude Code, Windsurf, or Lovable? Compare agentic harnesses · Latest releases.