Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM-4.7

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 42.0 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7 costs 20× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 28 shared benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.1 Anthropic

69.0

Rank #2 Confirmed

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

42.0

Rank #124 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 28 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 9 categories and GLM-4.7 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 24.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 100% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 6% for GLM-4.7.
  • GLM-4.7 is cheaper at $0.60 / $2.20 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
  • Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 205K.
  • GLM-4.7 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7
ProviderAnthropicZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index69.042.0
Released2026-09-012025-12-22
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M205K
Max output128K131K
Input $ / M tokens$10$0.60
Output $ / M tokens$50$2.20
Results tracked5236

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), GLM-4.7: 44.0 (#79)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7
LMArena WebDev17441435
SciCode63.1%45.1%
LMArena Coding15281454
ALE-Bench2,143399.48
FrontierCode50.9%—
CursorBench51.8%—
FrontierSWE56.3%—
GSO88.2%—
WeirdML92.9%—
MirrorCode73.3%—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7
Vending-Bench 25,4222,377
Terminal-Bench—33.4%
APEX-Agents68.6%—
Remote Labor Index17.9%—
GDP.pdf29.6%—

Reasoning Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7), GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7
CritPt31.1%1.7%
Chess Puzzles47%6%
LMArena Hard Prompts15261443
Epoch Capabilities Index164.7143.51
ARC-AGI-290%—
SimpleBench—47.7%
NYT Connections (extended)90%—
ARC-AGI-197.5%—
EBR-Bench57.1%—
Mystery Game Puzzles58%—
DTBench97.6%—
LMCA65.5%—

Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%83.3%
ProofBench100%6%
LMArena Math15251423
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)90.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 487.8%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—2.4%
FrontierMath Erdős0%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7
SimpleQA Verified70.8%32.2%
LMArena Expert15351424
GPQA Diamond—83.3%
Humanity's Last Exam46.5%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—11.7%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), GLM-4.7: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7
LMArena Vision1318—
Blueprint-Bench 241.9%—
Furniture Assembly70%—
LMArena Document1513—

Multilingual Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7
LMArena Non-English15071417
LMArena Chinese15861495
LMArena French15251432
LMArena German15001424
LMArena Japanese15431439
LMArena Korean15341399
LMArena Russian15211423
LMArena Spanish15161434

Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), GLM-4.7: 74.4 (#95)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7
LMArena Instruction Following15171411

Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7
LMArena Longer Query15221432
CL-bench—15.9%
CL-bench Life—10.9%

Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7
LMArena Text15101435
LMArena Creative Writing15071401
EQ-Bench Creative Writing21621413
LMArena Multi-Turn14921446

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than GLM-4.7?

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 42.0 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7 costs 20× 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 GLM-4.7?

GLM-4.7 is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.

Is Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM-4.7 better for coding?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 44.0 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Fable 5.1 does, with 1M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and GLM-4.7 share?

28 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7 has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper