Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen1.5 4b Chat

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 28.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.1 Anthropic

69.0

Rank #2 Confirmed

Qwen1.5 4b Chat Alibaba (Qwen)

28.8

Rank #322 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5 4b Chat 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 30.4.
  • Qwen1.5 4b Chat has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5 4b Chat
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index69.028.8
Released2026-09-01—
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$10—
Output $ / M tokens$50—
Results tracked5213

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 4b Chat: 29.1 (#308)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5 4b Chat
LMArena Coding1528999
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 4b Chat: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5 4b Chat
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 4b Chat: 18.5 (#279)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5 4b Chat
LMArena Hard Prompts1526976
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 4b Chat: 30.4 (#234)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5 4b Chat
LMArena Math15251026
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 4b Chat: 26.7 (#255)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5 4b Chat
LMArena Expert1535980
Humanity's Last Exam46.5%—
SimpleQA Verified70.8%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5 4b Chat
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 4b Chat: 24.1 (#290)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5 4b Chat
LMArena Non-English1507979
LMArena Chinese15861024
LMArena German1500902
LMArena Russian1521952
LMArena French1525—
LMArena Japanese1543—
LMArena Korean1534—
LMArena Spanish1516—

Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 49.0 (#300)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5 4b Chat
LMArena Instruction Following1517978

Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 30.1 (#290)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5 4b Chat
LMArena Longer Query1522988

Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 23.8 (#309)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5 4b Chat
LMArena Text1510997
LMArena Creative Writing1507969
LMArena Multi-Turn1492977
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2162—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Qwen1.5 4b Chat?

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 28.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen1.5 4b Chat better for coding?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen1.5 4b Chat share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5 4b Chat has 13.

Related comparisons

Go deeper