Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Grok-2 (Dec 2024)
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 33.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Grok-2 (Dec 2024) 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 20.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 100% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 11.5% for Grok-2 (Dec 2024).
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Grok-2 (Dec 2024) | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 33.7 |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2024-08-13 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | — |
| Results tracked | 52 | 34 |
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), Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 33.3 (#258)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Grok-2 (Dec 2024) |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 92.9% | 22.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | 1287 |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| SciCode | 63.1% | — |
| GSO | 88.2% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 46.4% |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Grok-2 (Dec 2024): —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Grok-2 (Dec 2024) |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 16.9 (#299)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Grok-2 (Dec 2024) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1272 |
| DTBench | 97.6% | 65.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | 130.48 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| SimpleBench | — | 22.7% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 54.8% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 54.5% |
| LMCA | 65.5% | — |
| LiveBench | — | 54.3% |
Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 20.8 (#284)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Grok-2 (Dec 2024) |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 11.5% |
| LMArena Math | 1525 | 1283 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 54.9% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 63.5% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 0.7% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 29.8 (#233)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Grok-2 (Dec 2024) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | 1254 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 53.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 20.1% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Grok-2 (Dec 2024): —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Grok-2 (Dec 2024) |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 43.1 (#188)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Grok-2 (Dec 2024) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1282 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1586 | 1289 |
| LMArena French | 1525 | 1318 |
| LMArena German | 1500 | 1287 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1543 | 1244 |
| LMArena Korean | 1534 | 1237 |
| LMArena Russian | 1521 | 1286 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1516 | 1281 |
Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 66.9 (#202)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Grok-2 (Dec 2024) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1270 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 69.6% |
Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 38.8 (#190)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Grok-2 (Dec 2024) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | 1276 |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 48.6 (#198)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Grok-2 (Dec 2024) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1510 | 1305 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | 1284 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | 1290 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 63.6% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 45.6% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Grok-2 (Dec 2024)?
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 33.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Grok-2 (Dec 2024) better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 33.3 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Grok-2 (Dec 2024) share?
21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Grok-2 (Dec 2024) has 34.