Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Glimmer

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.1 Anthropic

69.0

Rank #2 Confirmed

Muse Glimmer Meta

41.7

Rank #131 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Muse Glimmer in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 76.7 to 25.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is CritPt: 31.1% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 2.6% for Muse Glimmer.
  • Muse Glimmer has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Fable 5.1Muse Glimmer
ProviderAnthropicMeta
Noometry Index69.041.7
Released2026-09-012026-08-10
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$10—
Output $ / M tokens$50—
Results tracked5215

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), Muse Glimmer: 40.4 (#142)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Muse Glimmer
LMArena WebDev17441355
SciCode63.1%44.9%
LMArena Coding15281416
FrontierCode50.9%—
CursorBench51.8%—
FrontierSWE56.3%—
GSO88.2%—
WeirdML92.9%—
MirrorCode73.3%—
ALE-Bench2,143—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Muse Glimmer: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Muse Glimmer
APEX-Agents68.6%—
Remote Labor Index17.9%—
GDP.pdf29.6%—
Vending-Bench 25,422—

Reasoning Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7), Muse Glimmer: 25.7 (#144)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Muse Glimmer
CritPt31.1%2.6%
LMArena Hard Prompts15261396
ARC-AGI-290%—
NYT Connections (extended)90%—
ARC-AGI-197.5%—
Chess Puzzles47%—
EBR-Bench57.1%—
Mystery Game Puzzles58%—
DTBench97.6%—
LMCA65.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index164.7—

Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Muse Glimmer: 38.8 (#125)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Muse Glimmer
LMArena Math15251417
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)90.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 487.8%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%—
ProofBench100%—
FrontierMath Erdős0%—

Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Muse Glimmer: 38.5 (#143)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Muse Glimmer
LMArena Expert15351386
Humanity's Last Exam46.5%—
SimpleQA Verified70.8%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Muse Glimmer: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Muse Glimmer
LMArena Vision1318—
Blueprint-Bench 241.9%—
Furniture Assembly70%—
LMArena Document1513—

Multilingual Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), Muse Glimmer: 50.5 (#122)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Muse Glimmer
LMArena Non-English15071384
LMArena Chinese15861412
LMArena Russian15211390
LMArena French1525—
LMArena German1500—
LMArena Japanese1543—
LMArena Korean1534—
LMArena Spanish1516—

Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Muse Glimmer: 72.6 (#135)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Muse Glimmer
LMArena Instruction Following15171375

Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#129)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Muse Glimmer
LMArena Longer Query15221382

Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Muse Glimmer: 57.5 (#126)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Muse Glimmer
LMArena Text15101389
LMArena Creative Writing15071339
LMArena Multi-Turn14921399
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2162—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Muse Glimmer?

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Muse Glimmer better for coding?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 40.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Muse Glimmer share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Muse Glimmer has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper