Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs DeepSeek LLM 67B
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeekSummary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and DeepSeek LLM 67B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 89.6 to 8.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 100% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 0.8% for DeepSeek LLM 67B.
- DeepSeek LLM 67B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | DeepSeek LLM 67B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | DeepSeek |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 24.9 |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2023-11-29 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | — |
| Results tracked | 52 | 15 |
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), DeepSeek LLM 67B: 31.9 (#278)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | DeepSeek LLM 67B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | 1096 |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| SciCode | 63.1% | — |
| GSO | 88.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | — |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), DeepSeek LLM 67B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | DeepSeek LLM 67B |
|---|---|---|
| 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), DeepSeek LLM 67B: 16.5 (#304)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | DeepSeek LLM 67B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1070 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | 110.5 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.1% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
| DTBench | 97.6% | — |
| LMCA | 65.5% | — |
Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), DeepSeek LLM 67B: 8.7 (#324)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | DeepSeek LLM 67B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 0.8% |
| LMArena Math | 1525 | 1108 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 6.4% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), DeepSeek LLM 67B: 7.0 (#313)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | DeepSeek LLM 67B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 24.6% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), DeepSeek LLM 67B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | DeepSeek LLM 67B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1318 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 41.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 70% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1513 | — |
Multilingual Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), DeepSeek LLM 67B: 29.4 (#267)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | DeepSeek LLM 67B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1073 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1586 | 1132 |
| LMArena French | 1525 | — |
| LMArena German | 1500 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1543 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1534 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1521 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1516 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), DeepSeek LLM 67B: 55.4 (#277)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | DeepSeek LLM 67B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1079 |
Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), DeepSeek LLM 67B: 33.1 (#265)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | DeepSeek LLM 67B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | 1092 |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), DeepSeek LLM 67B: 31.6 (#282)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | DeepSeek LLM 67B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1510 | 1105 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | 1067 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | 1082 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than DeepSeek LLM 67B?
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or DeepSeek LLM 67B better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 31.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and DeepSeek LLM 67B share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and DeepSeek LLM 67B has 15.