Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM-4.7-Flash
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 138× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and GLM-4.7-Flash in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 76.7 to 20.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 47% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 0% for GLM-4.7-Flash.
- GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
- Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
- GLM-4.7-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 38.8 |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2026-01-19 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 200K |
| Max output | 128K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.06 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 21 |
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-Flash: 40.6 (#135)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | 1383 |
| 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), GLM-4.7-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| 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), GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1356 |
| 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% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | — |
Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 58.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1525 | 1355 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | 1357 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 60.5% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 9.3% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), GLM-4.7-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| 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), GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1330 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1586 | 1403 |
| LMArena French | 1525 | 1332 |
| LMArena German | 1500 | 1337 |
| LMArena Korean | 1534 | 1283 |
| LMArena Russian | 1521 | 1332 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1516 | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1543 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1327 |
Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | 1345 |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1510 | 1351 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | 1297 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | 1125 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | 1342 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than GLM-4.7-Flash?
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 138× 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-Flash?
GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM-4.7-Flash better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 40.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Fable 5.1 does, with 1M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and GLM-4.7-Flash share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7-Flash has 21.