Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Mistral Medium 3.1
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index. Mistral Medium 3.1 costs 25× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Mistral AISummary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 2 categories and Mistral Medium 3.1 in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 76.7 to 10.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 90% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 6.5% for Mistral Medium 3.1.
- Mistral Medium 3.1 is cheaper at $0.40 / $2 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
- Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Mistral Medium 3.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Mistral AI |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 31.9 |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 131K |
| Max output | 128K | 105K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | $2 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 74.7 (#1), Mistral Medium 3.1: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | — |
| 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), Mistral Medium 3.1: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Mistral Medium 3.1: 10.6 (#341)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | 6.5% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 20.3% |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
| DTBench | 97.6% | — |
| LMCA | 65.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | — |
Math Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Mistral Medium 3.1: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1525 | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Mistral Medium 3.1: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Mistral Medium 3.1: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1318 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 41.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 70% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1513 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), Mistral Medium 3.1: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Mistral Medium 3.1: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Mistral Medium 3.1: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Mistral Medium 3.1: 55.5 (#145)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | 1476 |
| LMArena Text | 1510 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Mistral Medium 3.1?
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index. Mistral Medium 3.1 costs 25× 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 Mistral Medium 3.1?
Mistral Medium 3.1 is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $2 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Fable 5.1 does, with 1M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Mistral Medium 3.1 share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Mistral Medium 3.1 has 3.