Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen Max
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Max costs 7.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen Max in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 89.6 to 22.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 100% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 16.1% for Qwen Max.
- Qwen Max is cheaper at $1.60 / $6.40 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
- Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 33K.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 34.7 |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2024-04-03 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 33K |
| Max output | 128K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | $1.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | $6.40 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 23 |
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 Max: 30.7 (#292)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | 1288 |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 21.8% |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| SciCode | 63.1% | — |
| GSO | 88.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | — |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Qwen Max: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Qwen Max: 25.1 (#151)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1269 |
| 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% | — |
| DTBench | 97.6% | — |
| LMCA | 65.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | — |
Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Qwen Max: 22.3 (#276)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 16.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1525 | 1275 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 67.2% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 1% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Qwen Max: 30.3 (#228)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | 1248 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 56.1% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Qwen Max: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Qwen Max: 41.8 (#202)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1263 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1586 | 1254 |
| LMArena French | 1525 | 1330 |
| LMArena German | 1500 | 1254 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1543 | 1205 |
| LMArena Korean | 1534 | 1142 |
| LMArena Russian | 1521 | 1274 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1516 | 1290 |
Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Qwen Max: 66.5 (#208)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1262 |
Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Qwen Max: 39.4 (#180)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | 1288 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 66.7% |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Qwen Max: 47.8 (#205)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1510 | 1282 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | 1248 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | 1277 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Qwen Max?
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Max costs 7.1× 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 Qwen Max?
Qwen Max is cheaper. It lists at $1.60 per million input tokens and $6.40 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen Max better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 30.7 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Fable 5.1 does, with 1M tokens against 33K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen Max share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Max has 23.