Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen-14B

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.1 Anthropic

69.0

Rank #2 Confirmed

Qwen-14B Alibaba (Qwen)

31.4

Rank #275 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen-14B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 89.6 to 31.2.
  • Qwen-14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Fable 5.1Qwen-14B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index69.031.4
Released2026-09-012023-09-24
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$10—
Output $ / M tokens$50—
Results tracked5218

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), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#288)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen-14B
LMArena Coding15281071
FrontierCode50.9%—
CursorBench51.8%—
LMArena WebDev1744—
FrontierSWE56.3%—
SciCode63.1%—
GSO88.2%—
WeirdML92.9%—
MirrorCode73.3%—
ALE-Bench2,143—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Qwen-14B: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen-14B
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), Qwen-14B: 19.6 (#257)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen-14B
LMArena Hard Prompts15261027
Epoch Capabilities Index164.7113.03
ARC-AGI-290%—
NYT Connections (extended)90%—
ARC-AGI-197.5%—
CritPt31.1%—
Chess Puzzles47%—
EBR-Bench57.1%—
Mystery Game Puzzles58%—
DTBench97.6%—
LMCA65.5%—
BIG-Bench Hard—55%
LAMBADA—71.1%
PIQA—79.9%

Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#227)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen-14B
LMArena Math15251068
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)90.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 487.8%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%—
ProofBench100%—
FrontierMath Erdős0%—
GSM8K—61.3%

Knowledge Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Qwen-14B: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen-14B
Humanity's Last Exam46.5%—
SimpleQA Verified70.8%—
LMArena Expert1535—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—84.4%
BoolQ—86.2%
MMLU—66.3%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Qwen-14B: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen-14B
LMArena Vision1318—
Blueprint-Bench 241.9%—
Furniture Assembly70%—
LMArena Document1513—

Multilingual Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), Qwen-14B: 27.5 (#275)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen-14B
LMArena Non-English15071041
LMArena Chinese15861077
LMArena French1525—
LMArena German1500—
LMArena Japanese1543—
LMArena Korean1534—
LMArena Russian1521—
LMArena Spanish1516—

Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Qwen-14B: 52.4 (#289)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen-14B
LMArena Instruction Following15171031

Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#280)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen-14B
LMArena Longer Query15221028

Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Qwen-14B: 27.6 (#299)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen-14B
LMArena Text15101051
LMArena Creative Writing15071028
LMArena Multi-Turn14921022
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2162—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Qwen-14B?

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen-14B better for coding?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 31.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen-14B share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.

Related comparisons

Go deeper