Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Hy4 preview
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 45.3 on the Noometry Index. Hy4 preview costs 18× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
TencentSummary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 3 categories and Hy4 preview in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 76.7 to 31.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 100% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 75% for Hy4 preview.
- Hy4 preview is cheaper at $0.75 / $2.25 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
- Hy4 preview accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
- Hy4 preview has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Hy4 preview | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Tencent |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 45.3 |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2026-08-28 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 1.05M |
| Max output | 128K | 64K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.75 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | $2.25 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 3 |
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), Hy4 preview: 51.6 (#38)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Hy4 preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | 1632 |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| SciCode | 63.1% | — |
| GSO | 88.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | — |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Hy4 preview: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Hy4 preview |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Hy4 preview: 31.9 (#79)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Hy4 preview |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | 68.2% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | — |
| 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), Hy4 preview: 55.7 (#42)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Hy4 preview |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 100% | 75% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1525 | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Hy4 preview: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Hy4 preview |
|---|---|---|
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Hy4 preview: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Hy4 preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1318 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 41.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 70% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1513 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), Hy4 preview: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Hy4 preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1586 | — |
| LMArena French | 1525 | — |
| LMArena German | 1500 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1543 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1534 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1521 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1516 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Hy4 preview: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Hy4 preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Hy4 preview: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Hy4 preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Hy4 preview: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Hy4 preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1510 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Hy4 preview?
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 45.3 on the Noometry Index. Hy4 preview costs 18× 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 Hy4 preview?
Hy4 preview is cheaper. It lists at $0.75 per million input tokens and $2.25 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Hy4 preview better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 51.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Hy4 preview does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Hy4 preview share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Hy4 preview has 3.