Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen Plus
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Plus costs 33× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen Plus 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 23.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 100% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 17.8% for Qwen Plus.
- Qwen Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 37.1 |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2024-01-25 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | $1.20 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 20 |
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 Plus: 38.9 (#167)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | 1328 |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| 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 Plus: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Plus: 28.4 (#107)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1317 |
| DTBench | 97.6% | 81.1% |
| LMCA | 65.5% | 24% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 63.3% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | — |
Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Qwen Plus: 23.3 (#271)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 17.8% |
| LMArena Math | 1525 | 1326 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 65.3% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 1.7% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#251)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | 1328 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 48.1% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Qwen Plus: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Plus: 45.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1310 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1586 | 1347 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1543 | 1251 |
| LMArena Russian | 1521 | 1323 |
| LMArena French | 1525 | — |
| LMArena German | 1500 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1534 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1516 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Qwen Plus: 68.8 (#181)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1303 |
Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#158)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | 1324 |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Qwen Plus: 52.2 (#176)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1510 | 1326 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | 1293 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | 1336 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Qwen Plus?
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Plus costs 33× 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 Plus?
Qwen Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen Plus better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen Plus share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Plus has 20.