Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Phi-3.5-mini

Claude Fable 5.1 has enough public results to be ranked (#2); Phi-3.5-mini does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.1 Anthropic

69.0

Rank #2 Confirmed

Phi-3.5-mini Microsoft

36.9

Unranked Sparse

Summary

  • The widest gap is in coding, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 74.7 to 34.6.
  • Phi-3.5-mini has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Fable 5.1Phi-3.5-mini
ProviderAnthropicMicrosoft
Noometry Index69.036.9
Released2026-09-012024-08-16
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$10—
Output $ / M tokens$50—
Results tracked525

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), Phi-3.5-mini: 34.6 (#232)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Phi-3.5-mini
FrontierCode50.9%—
CursorBench51.8%—
LMArena WebDev1744—
FrontierSWE56.3%—
SciCode63.1%—
GSO88.2%—
WeirdML92.9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—32.8%
LMArena Coding1528—
MirrorCode73.3%—
BigCodeBench Complete—38.5%
ALE-Bench2,143—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Phi-3.5-mini: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Phi-3.5-mini
APEX-Agents68.6%—
Remote Labor Index17.9%—
GDP.pdf29.6%—
Vending-Bench 25,422—

Reasoning Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7), Phi-3.5-mini: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Phi-3.5-mini
ARC-AGI-290%—
NYT Connections (extended)90%—
ARC-AGI-197.5%—
CritPt31.1%—
Chess Puzzles47%—
EBR-Bench57.1%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1526—
Mystery Game Puzzles58%—
DTBench97.6%—
LMCA65.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index164.7—
PIQA—81%

Math Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Phi-3.5-mini: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Phi-3.5-mini
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)90.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 487.8%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%—
ProofBench100%—
LMArena Math1525—
FrontierMath Erdős0%—
GSM8K—86.2%

Knowledge Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Phi-3.5-mini: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Phi-3.5-mini
Humanity's Last Exam46.5%—
SimpleQA Verified70.8%—
LMArena Expert1535—
BoolQ—78%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Phi-3.5-mini: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Phi-3.5-mini
LMArena Vision1318—
Blueprint-Bench 241.9%—
Furniture Assembly70%—
LMArena Document1513—

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), Phi-3.5-mini: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Phi-3.5-mini
LMArena Non-English1507—
LMArena Chinese1586—
LMArena French1525—
LMArena German1500—
LMArena Japanese1543—
LMArena Korean1534—
LMArena Russian1521—
LMArena Spanish1516—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Phi-3.5-mini: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Phi-3.5-mini
LMArena Instruction Following1517—

Long Context Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Phi-3.5-mini: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Phi-3.5-mini
LMArena Longer Query1522—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Phi-3.5-mini: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Phi-3.5-mini
LMArena Text1510—
LMArena Creative Writing1507—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2162—
LMArena Multi-Turn1492—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Phi-3.5-mini?

Claude Fable 5.1 has enough public results to be ranked (#2); Phi-3.5-mini does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Phi-3.5-mini better for coding?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 34.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Phi-3.5-mini share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Phi-3.5-mini has 5.

Related comparisons

Go deeper