Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen2.5 Plus 1127

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.1 Anthropic

69.0

Rank #2 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 Alibaba (Qwen)

38.8

Rank #181 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 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 36.1.

Side by side

Claude Fable 5.1Qwen2.5 Plus 1127
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index69.038.8
Released2026-09-01—
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1M—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$10—
Output $ / M tokens$50—
Results tracked5214

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), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 38.5 (#175)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Coding15281314
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), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen2.5 Plus 1127
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), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 25.9 (#141)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Hard Prompts15261299
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), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 36.1 (#174)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Math15251298
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), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 35.5 (#183)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Expert15351289
Humanity's Last Exam46.5%—
SimpleQA Verified70.8%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Vision1318—
Blueprint-Bench 241.9%—
Furniture Assembly70%—
LMArena Document1513—

Multilingual Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 41.9 (#201)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Non-English15071265
LMArena Chinese15861314
LMArena German15001231
LMArena Japanese15431207
LMArena Russian15211271
LMArena French1525—
LMArena Korean1534—
LMArena Spanish1516—

Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 67.2 (#199)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Instruction Following15171275

Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 39.2 (#184)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Longer Query15221292

Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 49.4 (#192)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Text15101299
LMArena Creative Writing15071262
LMArena Multi-Turn14921299
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2162—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Qwen2.5 Plus 1127?

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 better for coding?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 38.5 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 has 14.

Related comparisons

Go deeper