Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Llama 4 Maverick

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 30.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Maverick costs 66× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 31 shared benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.1 Anthropic

69.0

Rank #2 Confirmed

Llama 4 Maverick Meta

30.9

Rank #282 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 31 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 10 categories and Llama 4 Maverick in 0 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 76.7 to 10.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-1: 97.5% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 4.4% for Llama 4 Maverick.
  • Llama 4 Maverick is cheaper at $0.19 / $0.65 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
  • Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
  • Llama 4 Maverick has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Fable 5.1Llama 4 Maverick
ProviderAnthropicMeta
Noometry Index69.030.9
Released2026-09-012025-04-05
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M128K
Max output128K4K
Input $ / M tokens$10$0.19
Output $ / M tokens$50$0.65
Results tracked5254

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), Llama 4 Maverick: 26.6 (#324)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama 4 Maverick
SciCode63.1%33.1%
WeirdML92.9%24.5%
LMArena Coding15281302
ALE-Bench2,143172.97
FrontierCode50.9%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—21%
Aider Polyglot—15.6%
CursorBench51.8%—
LMArena WebDev1744—
FrontierSWE56.3%—
GSO88.2%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—49.7%
MirrorCode73.3%—
BigCodeBench Complete—61.4%

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Llama 4 Maverick: 28.2 (#91)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama 4 Maverick
APEX-Agents68.6%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—37.3%
Remote Labor Index17.9%—
GDP.pdf29.6%—
Vending-Bench 25,422—

Reasoning Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7), Llama 4 Maverick: 10.1 (#342)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama 4 Maverick
ARC-AGI-290%0%
NYT Connections (extended)90%8%
ARC-AGI-197.5%4.4%
CritPt31.1%0%
LMArena Hard Prompts15261281
DTBench97.6%61.9%
LMCA65.5%15.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index164.7132.2
SimpleBench—27.7%
Kagi LLM Benchmark—55.9%
Chess Puzzles47%—
EnigmaEval—0.6%
EBR-Bench57.1%—
Mystery Game Puzzles58%—
ForecastBench—57.5

Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Llama 4 Maverick: 26.0 (#262)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama 4 Maverick
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%20.6%
LMArena Math15251299
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)90.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 487.8%—
ProofBench100%—
Omni-MATH—42.2%
MATH Level 5—73%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—0.7%
FrontierMath Erdős0%—

Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Llama 4 Maverick: 33.4 (#204)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama 4 Maverick
Humanity's Last Exam46.5%5.7%
LMArena Expert15351259
GPQA Diamond—67%
SimpleQA Verified70.8%—
MMLU-Pro—81%
Confabulations—22.6%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—8.2%
GPQA (HELM)—65%

Multimodal Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Llama 4 Maverick: 31.6 (#105)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama 4 Maverick
LMArena Vision13181142
GeoBench—52%
Blueprint-Bench 241.9%—
Furniture Assembly70%—
LMArena Document1513—
SpatialViz-Bench—31.8%

Multilingual Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), Llama 4 Maverick: 42.2 (#195)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama 4 Maverick
LMArena Non-English15071269
LMArena Chinese15861277
LMArena French15251259
LMArena German15001291
LMArena Japanese15431207
LMArena Korean15341203
LMArena Russian15211286
LMArena Spanish15161293

Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Llama 4 Maverick: 71.7 (#146)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama 4 Maverick
LMArena Instruction Following15171267
IFEval—90.8%

Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Llama 4 Maverick: 31.4 (#279)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama 4 Maverick
LMArena Longer Query15221280
Fiction.LiveBench—46.2%

Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Llama 4 Maverick: 38.8 (#252)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama 4 Maverick
LMArena Text15101287
LMArena Creative Writing15071267
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2162860
LMArena Multi-Turn14921289
Short-Story Creative Writing—62%
WildBench—80%

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Llama 4 Maverick?

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 30.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Maverick costs 66× 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 Llama 4 Maverick?

Llama 4 Maverick is cheaper. It lists at $0.19 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.

Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Llama 4 Maverick better for coding?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 26.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Fable 5.1 does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Llama 4 Maverick share?

31 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Llama 4 Maverick has 54.

Related comparisons

Go deeper