Model comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs DeepSeek-R1

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 42.3 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-R1 costs 22× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 26 shared benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.1 Anthropic

69.0

Rank #2 Confirmed

DeepSeek-R1

DeepSeek

42.3

Rank #115 Confirmed

Summary

They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 9 categories and DeepSeek-R1 in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 76.7 to 18.6.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-2: 90% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 1.3% for DeepSeek-R1.
DeepSeek-R1 is cheaper at $0.50 / $2.15 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 164K.

Side by side

Claude Fable 5.1 and DeepSeek-R1 specifications
	Claude Fable 5.1	DeepSeek-R1
Provider	Anthropic	DeepSeek
Noometry Index	69.0	42.3
Released	2026-09-01	2025-01-20
Weights	Proprietary	Proprietary
Context window	1M	164K
Max output	128K	64K
Input $ / M tokens	$10	$0.50
Output $ / M tokens	$50	$2.15
Results tracked	52	52

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-R1: 46.3 (#68)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Claude Fable 5.1	DeepSeek-R1
SciCode	63.1%	35.7%
WeirdML	92.9%	41.6%
LMArena Coding	1528	1427
ALE-Bench	2,143	804.12
FrontierCode	50.9%	—
Aider Polyglot	—	71.4%
CursorBench	51.8%	—
LMArena WebDev	1744	—
FrontierSWE	56.3%	—
GSO	88.2%	—
LiveBench Coding	—	66.7%
MirrorCode	73.3%	—
AlgoTune	—	1.7

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), DeepSeek-R1: 30.7 (#75)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Claude Fable 5.1	DeepSeek-R1
APEX-Agents	68.6%	—
Remote Labor Index	17.9%	—
DeepResearch Bench	—	35.1%
BALROG	—	34.9%
GDP.pdf	29.6%	—
METR Time Horizons	—	53.8%
Vending-Bench 2	5,422	—

Reasoning Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7), DeepSeek-R1: 18.6 (#278)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Claude Fable 5.1	DeepSeek-R1
ARC-AGI-2	90%	1.3%
ARC-AGI-1	97.5%	21.2%
CritPt	31.1%	1.1%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1526	1416
Epoch Capabilities Index	164.7	141.29
SimpleBench	—	40.8%
Kagi LLM Benchmark	—	69.4%
NYT Connections (extended)	90%	—
Chess Puzzles	47%	—
EBR-Bench	57.1%	—
LiveBench Reasoning	—	83.2%
Mystery Game Puzzles	58%	—
DTBench	97.6%	—
LiveBench Data Analysis	—	69.8%
LMCA	65.5%	—
ForecastBench	—	60
LiveBench	—	71.6%

Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), DeepSeek-R1: 43.8 (#79)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Claude Fable 5.1	DeepSeek-R1
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	100%	66.4%
LMArena Math	1525	1400
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)	90.2%	—
FrontierMath Tier 4	87.8%	—
ProofBench	100%	—
Omni-MATH	—	42.4%
LiveBench Math	—	80.7%
MATH Level 5	—	96.6%
FrontierMath Erdős	0%	—

Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), DeepSeek-R1: 44.5 (#87)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Claude Fable 5.1	DeepSeek-R1
LMArena Expert	1535	1394
GPQA Diamond	—	76.3%
Humanity's Last Exam	46.5%	—
SimpleQA Verified	70.8%	—
MMLU-Pro	—	79.3%
Confabulations	—	12.7%
Vectara Hallucination Rate	—	11.3%
GPQA (HELM)	—	66.6%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), DeepSeek-R1: —

Multimodal benchmarks
Benchmark	Claude Fable 5.1	DeepSeek-R1
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-R1: 52.4 (#85)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Claude Fable 5.1	DeepSeek-R1
LMArena Non-English	1507	1412
LMArena Chinese	1586	1442
LMArena French	1525	1417
LMArena German	1500	1404
LMArena Japanese	1543	1391
LMArena Korean	1534	1360
LMArena Russian	1521	1423
LMArena Spanish	1516	1411

Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), DeepSeek-R1: 72.0 (#143)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Claude Fable 5.1	DeepSeek-R1
LMArena Instruction Following	1517	1382
LiveBench Instruction Following	—	80.5%
IFEval	—	78.4%

Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), DeepSeek-R1: 45.4 (#36)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Claude Fable 5.1	DeepSeek-R1
LMArena Longer Query	1522	1391
Fiction.LiveBench	—	75%

Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), DeepSeek-R1: 61.4 (#88)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Claude Fable 5.1	DeepSeek-R1
LMArena Text	1510	1428
LMArena Creative Writing	1507	1405
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	2162	1500
LMArena Multi-Turn	1492	1405
Short-Story Creative Writing	—	83%
WildBench	—	82.8%
LiveBench Language	—	48.5%

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than DeepSeek-R1?

Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or DeepSeek-R1?

DeepSeek-R1 is cheaper. It lists at $0.50 per million input tokens and $2.15 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.

Is Claude Fable 5.1 or DeepSeek-R1 better for coding?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 46.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Fable 5.1 does, with 1M tokens against 164K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and DeepSeek-R1 share?

26 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and DeepSeek-R1 has 52.