Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen1.5-14B

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.1 Anthropic

69.0

Rank #2 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-14B Alibaba (Qwen)

32.7

Rank #253 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-14B 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 32.4.
  • Qwen1.5-14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5-14B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index69.032.7
Released2026-09-012024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$10—
Output $ / M tokens$50—
Results tracked5217

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), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.1 (#263)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Coding15281138
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), Qwen1.5-14B: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5-14B
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), Qwen1.5-14B: 21.4 (#223)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Hard Prompts15261113
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%—
Epoch Capabilities Index164.7—

Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Qwen1.5-14B: 32.4 (#215)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Math15251125
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), Qwen1.5-14B: 29.8 (#232)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Expert15351094
Humanity's Last Exam46.5%—
SimpleQA Verified70.8%—
MMLU—68.6%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Qwen1.5-14B: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Vision1318—
Blueprint-Bench 241.9%—
Furniture Assembly70%—
LMArena Document1513—

Multilingual Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), Qwen1.5-14B: 30.7 (#262)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Non-English15071095
LMArena Chinese15861147
LMArena French15251116
LMArena German15001043
LMArena Japanese15431019
LMArena Russian15211046
LMArena Spanish15161085
LMArena Korean1534—

Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Qwen1.5-14B: 56.8 (#271)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Instruction Following15171102

Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#257)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Longer Query15221113

Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.6 (#276)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Text15101128
LMArena Creative Writing15071091
LMArena Multi-Turn14921110
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2162—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Qwen1.5-14B?

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen1.5-14B better for coding?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 33.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen1.5-14B share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-14B has 17.

Related comparisons

Go deeper