Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 44.3 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp costs 69× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 33 shared benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.1 Anthropic

69.0

Rank #2 Confirmed

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp DeepSeek

44.3

Rank #78 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 33 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 76.7 to 22.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 100% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 8% for DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp.
  • DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp is cheaper at $0.26 / $0.38 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
  • Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 164K.
  • DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Fable 5.1DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp
ProviderAnthropicDeepSeek
Noometry Index69.044.3
Released2026-09-012025-09-29
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M164K
Max output128K66K
Input $ / M tokens$10$0.26
Output $ / M tokens$50$0.38
Results tracked5249

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-V3.2-Exp: 46.5 (#65)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp
LMArena WebDev17441362
SciCode63.1%38.9%
WeirdML92.9%39.5%
LMArena Coding15281454
FrontierCode50.9%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—70%
Aider Polyglot—74.2%
CursorBench51.8%—
SWE-bench Multilingual—59%
FrontierSWE56.3%—
GSO88.2%—
MirrorCode73.3%—
ALE-Bench2,143—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 32.7 (#59)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp
APEX-Agents68.6%21.3%
Vending-Bench 25,4221,034
Terminal-Bench—39.6%
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—56.7%
Remote Labor Index17.9%—
TheAgentCompany—42.9%
GDP.pdf29.6%—

Reasoning Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7), DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 22.1 (#208)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp
ARC-AGI-290%4%
NYT Connections (extended)90%36.7%
ARC-AGI-197.5%57%
CritPt31.1%2.9%
Chess Puzzles47%14%
LMArena Hard Prompts15261434
DTBench97.6%87.7%
LMCA65.5%29.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index164.7146.27
Kagi LLM Benchmark—52.2%
Thematic Generalization—65%
EBR-Bench57.1%—
Mystery Game Puzzles58%—

Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 41.7 (#87)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%87.8%
ProofBench100%8%
LMArena Math15251435
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)90.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 487.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—57.7%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—22.1%
FrontierMath Erdős0%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—2.1%

Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 51.7 (#66)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp
LMArena Expert15351436
GPQA Diamond—83.4%
Humanity's Last Exam46.5%—
SimpleQA Verified70.8%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—5.3%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp
LMArena Vision1318—
Blueprint-Bench 241.9%—
Furniture Assembly70%—
LMArena Document1513—

Multilingual Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 52.2 (#90)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp
LMArena Non-English15071409
LMArena Chinese15861461
LMArena French15251433
LMArena German15001440
LMArena Japanese15431374
LMArena Korean15341371
LMArena Russian15211424
LMArena Spanish15161440

Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 74.5 (#93)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp
LMArena Instruction Following15171413

Long Context Too close to call

Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 47.6 (#16)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp
LMArena Longer Query15221428
Fiction.LiveBench—83.3%
CL-bench—13.2%
CL-bench Life—9.5%

Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 62.4 (#77)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp
LMArena Text15101425
LMArena Creative Writing15071403
EQ-Bench Creative Writing21621515
LMArena Multi-Turn14921427

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp?

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 44.3 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp costs 69× 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 DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp?

DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp is cheaper. It lists at $0.26 per million input tokens and $0.38 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.

Is Claude Fable 5.1 or DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp better for coding?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 46.5 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-V3.2-Exp share?

33 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp has 49.

Related comparisons

Go deeper