Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Mixtral 8x22B
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index. Mixtral 8x22B costs 6.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
Mistral AISummary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 9 categories and Mixtral 8x22B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 89.6 to 22.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 92.9% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 3.2% for Mixtral 8x22B.
- Mixtral 8x22B is cheaper at $2 / $6 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
- Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 64K.
- Mixtral 8x22B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Mixtral 8x22B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Mistral AI |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 27.1 |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2024-04-17 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 64K |
| Max output | 128K | 64K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | $6 |
| 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), Mixtral 8x22B: 24.2 (#329)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Mixtral 8x22B |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 92.9% | 3.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | 1166 |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| SciCode | 63.1% | — |
| GSO | 88.2% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 40.6% |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 50.2% |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 72% |
| MBPP+ | — | 64.3% |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Mixtral 8x22B: 23.1 (#127)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Mixtral 8x22B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 68.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 17.9% | — |
| Cybench | — | 7.5% |
| GDP.pdf | 29.6% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,422 | — |
Reasoning Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7), Mixtral 8x22B: 19.9 (#248)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Mixtral 8x22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1150 |
| DTBench | 97.6% | 55.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | 122.03 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
| LMCA | 65.5% | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 56.3 |
Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Mixtral 8x22B: 22.9 (#275)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Mixtral 8x22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1525 | 1184 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 16.3% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 24.2% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Mixtral 8x22B: 15.1 (#293)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Mixtral 8x22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | 1113 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 34.1% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 46% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 33.4% |
| MMLU | — | 77.8% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Mixtral 8x22B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Mixtral 8x22B |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Mixtral 8x22B: 32.8 (#255)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Mixtral 8x22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1128 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1586 | 1116 |
| LMArena French | 1525 | 1166 |
| LMArena German | 1500 | 1141 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1543 | 1037 |
| LMArena Korean | 1534 | 1057 |
| LMArena Russian | 1521 | 1158 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1516 | 1151 |
Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Mixtral 8x22B: 57.7 (#266)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Mixtral 8x22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1147 |
| IFEval | — | 72.4% |
Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Mixtral 8x22B: 34.7 (#247)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Mixtral 8x22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | 1144 |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Mixtral 8x22B: 36.9 (#262)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Mixtral 8x22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1510 | 1162 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | 1141 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | 1130 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | — |
| WildBench | — | 71.1% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Mixtral 8x22B?
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index. Mixtral 8x22B costs 6.7× 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 Mixtral 8x22B?
Mixtral 8x22B is cheaper. It lists at $2 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Mixtral 8x22B better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 24.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Fable 5.1 does, with 1M tokens against 64K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Mixtral 8x22B share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Mixtral 8x22B has 34.