Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Codestral
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 30.6 on the Noometry Index. Codestral costs 44× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
Mistral AISummary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 2 categories and Codestral in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 76.7 to 19.8.
- Codestral is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
- Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 256K.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Codestral | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Mistral AI |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 30.6 |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2024-05-29 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 256K |
| Max output | 128K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | $0.90 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 74.7 (#1), Codestral: 27.3 (#321)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Codestral |
|---|---|---|
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | 137.78 |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 11.1% |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| SciCode | 63.1% | — |
| GSO | 88.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 41.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | — |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.5% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 73.8% |
| MBPP+ | — | 61.9% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Codestral: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Codestral |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 68.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 17.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 29.6% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,422 | — |
Reasoning Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7), Codestral: 19.8 (#251)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Codestral |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 32.5% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
| DTBench | 97.6% | — |
| LMCA | 65.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | — |
Math Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Codestral: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Codestral |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1525 | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Codestral: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Codestral |
|---|---|---|
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Codestral: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Codestral |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1318 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 41.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 70% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1513 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), Codestral: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Codestral |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1586 | — |
| LMArena French | 1525 | — |
| LMArena German | 1500 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1543 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1534 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1521 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1516 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Codestral: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Codestral |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Codestral: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Codestral |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Codestral: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Codestral |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1510 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Codestral?
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 30.6 on the Noometry Index. Codestral costs 44× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or Codestral?
Codestral is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Codestral better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 27.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Fable 5.1 does, with 1M tokens against 256K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Codestral share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Codestral has 7.