Compare / head-to-head
Claude Fable 5.1vsClaude Opus 4.6
Claude Fable 5.1 leads 4 of 4 shared benchmarks. Claude Opus 4.6 is 2x cheaper per token. Both offer a 1M-token context window.
Benchmarks from cited public sources; pricing from official pages; status from official provider feeds.
Shared benchmarks
4 – 0
Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Cheaper per token
Claude Opus 4.6
2x cheaper, input + output
Larger context
Tie
both 1M tokens
Provider uptime (30d)
100%
Anthropic
Claude Fable 5.1
Anthropic · released 2026-09-01
textvision
Claude Opus 4.6
Anthropic · released 2026-02-05
textvision
Quality
Benchmark matrix
4 shared · 4 only Claude Fable 5.1 · 14 only Claude Opus 4.6| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Δ | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reported by both · 4 | ||||
| FrontierMath Tier 4 v2 (Epoch AI run) | 87.8% ↗epoch | 26.8% ↗epoch | +61 pt | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 v2 (Epoch AI run) | 90.2% ↗epoch | 66% ↗epoch | +24.2 pt | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 (Epoch AI run) | 100% ↗epoch | 94.4% ↗epoch | +5.6 pt | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% ↗epoch | 47% ↗epoch | +23.8 pt | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Only Claude Fable 5.1 reports · 4 | ||||
| Humanity's Last Exam (no tools) | 60.9% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| CursorBench 3.2.0 | 73.4% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| GDPval-AA v2 | 1853 ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| Terminal-Bench Science 0.1 | 52.6% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| Only Claude Opus 4.6 reports · 14 | ||||
| SWE-bench Verified | not reported | 80.8% ↗ | — | — |
| GPQA Diamond | not reported | 91.3% ↗ | — | — |
| AIME 2026 | not reported | 96.7% ↗matharena | — | — |
| LMArena Elo | not reported | 1497.5 ↗ | — | — |
| ARC-AGI-2 (Verified) | not reported | 68.8% ↗ | — | — |
| MCP Atlas | not reported | 59.5% ↗ | — | — |
| MMMLU | not reported | 91.1% ↗ | — | — |
| MMMU-Pro (no tools) | not reported | 73.9% ↗ | — | — |
| MMMU-Pro (with tools) | not reported | 77.3% ↗ | — | — |
| OSWorld-Verified | not reported | 72.7% ↗ | — | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (Epoch AI run) | not reported | 78.7% ↗epoch | — | — |
| Tau2-bench Retail | not reported | 91.9% ↗ | — | — |
| Tau2-bench Telecom | not reported | 99.3% ↗ | — | — |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | not reported | 65.4% ↗ | — | — |
Scores tagged "epoch" or "matharena" are independent runs, used only where the lab has not published its own; ⚠ marks rows MathArena flags as released after the competition. Higher is better on every row. Δ is Claude Fable 5.1 minus Claude Opus 4.6 in the benchmark's own unit. "Not reported" means the lab has not published that figure; it is not a zero. ↗ opens the source.
Specs & pricing
Side by side
Official pricing pages and model cards| Spec | Claude Fable 5.1 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Context window | 1M tokens | 1M tokens | Tie |
| Max output | 128K tokens | 128K tokens | Tie |
| Input price / 1M | $10 ↗ | $5 ↗ | Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Output price / 1M | $50 ↗ | $25 ↗ | Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Cached input / 1M | $0.25 ↗ | $0.5 ↗ | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Input + output / 1M Lower is cheaper. List prices; batch, tool and regional fees excluded. | $60 | $30 | Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Modalities | text · vision | text · vision | Tie |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2026-02-05 | — |
| Cited benchmark scores | 8 | 19 | — |
Reliability
Anthropic status
Last 60 days · refreshed daily on this page · live on /statusMore matchups
Claude Fable 5.1 vs …
Models sharing the most benchmarksMore matchups
Claude Opus 4.6 vs …
Models sharing the most benchmarksBuilt by Respan
Which one wins on your data?
Public benchmarks are a starting point. Run Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Opus 4.6 on your own prompts with Respan evals, or route to either through one gateway key with automatic failover.