Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3 14B
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 14B 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 . 7 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 7 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen3 14B in 0 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 76.7 to 18.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 65.5% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 18.2% for Qwen3 14B.
- Qwen3 14B is cheaper at $0.35 / $1.40 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
- Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
- Qwen3 14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3 14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 35.5 |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 131K |
| Max output | 128K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.35 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | $1.40 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 12 |
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), Qwen3 14B: 37.3 (#195)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 63.1% | 31.6% |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| GSO | 88.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | — |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Qwen3 14B: 29.6 (#83)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 68.6% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41% |
| 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), Qwen3 14B: 18.5 (#280)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 31.1% | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | 4% |
| DTBench | 97.6% | 64% |
| LMCA | 65.5% | 18.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | 138.23 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 49.1% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Qwen3 14B: 38.6 (#133)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 66.4% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1525 | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Qwen3 14B: 39.3 (#134)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 63.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1318 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 41.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 70% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1513 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1586 | — |
| LMArena French | 1525 | — |
| LMArena German | 1500 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1543 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1534 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1521 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1516 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | — |
Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Qwen3 14B: 38.1 (#204)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 62.5% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1510 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Qwen3 14B?
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 14B 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 Qwen3 14B?
Qwen3 14B is cheaper. It lists at $0.35 per million input tokens and $1.40 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen3 14B better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 37.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Fable 5.1 does, with 1M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen3 14B share?
7 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.