Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3 235B-A22B

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 43.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 235B-A22B costs 16× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 31 shared benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.1 Anthropic

69.0

Rank #2 Confirmed

Qwen3 235B-A22B Alibaba (Qwen)

43.5

Rank #91 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 31 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen3 235B-A22B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 76.7 to 15.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-2: 90% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 1.3% for Qwen3 235B-A22B.
  • Qwen3 235B-A22B is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 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 235B-A22B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Fable 5.1Qwen3 235B-A22B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index69.043.5
Released2026-09-012025-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M131K
Max output128K16K
Input $ / M tokens$10$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$50$2.80
Results tracked5249

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 235B-A22B: 44.3 (#75)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3 235B-A22B
SciCode63.1%42.4%
WeirdML92.9%41%
LMArena Coding15281445
FrontierCode50.9%—
Aider Polyglot—59.6%
CursorBench51.8%—
LMArena WebDev1744—
FrontierSWE56.3%—
GSO88.2%—
MirrorCode73.3%—
ALE-Bench2,143—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 33.9 (#51)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3 235B-A22B
Vending-Bench 25,422-11.34
APEX-Agents68.6%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—52.1%
Remote Labor Index17.9%—
GDP.pdf29.6%—

Reasoning Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 15.7 (#311)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3 235B-A22B
ARC-AGI-290%1.3%
ARC-AGI-197.5%11%
CritPt31.1%0%
Chess Puzzles47%12%
LMArena Hard Prompts15261433
Mystery Game Puzzles58%9%
DTBench97.6%80.3%
LMCA65.5%29.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index164.7143.85
SimpleBench—31%
Kagi LLM Benchmark—69.4%
NYT Connections (extended)90%—
EBR-Bench57.1%—
ForecastBench—59.7

Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 50.4 (#57)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3 235B-A22B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%86.7%
LMArena Math15251432
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)90.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 487.8%—
ProofBench100%—
Omni-MATH—71.8%
MATH Level 5—68.9%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—8.5%
FrontierMath Erdős0%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 49.6 (#73)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3 235B-A22B
SimpleQA Verified70.8%40.4%
LMArena Expert15351463
GPQA Diamond—80.1%
Humanity's Last Exam46.5%—
MMLU-Pro—84.4%
Confabulations—15.6%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—9.3%
GPQA (HELM)—72.7%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Qwen3 235B-A22B: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Vision1318—
Blueprint-Bench 241.9%—
Furniture Assembly70%—
LMArena Document1513—

Multilingual Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 52.3 (#89)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Non-English15071409
LMArena Chinese15861481
LMArena French15251445
LMArena German15001433
LMArena Japanese15431399
LMArena Korean15341391
LMArena Russian15211411
LMArena Spanish15161430

Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 72.6 (#136)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Instruction Following15171408
IFEval—83.5%

Long Context Too close to call

Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 46.1 (#26)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Longer Query15221426
Fiction.LiveBench—75%

Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 59.6 (#108)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Text15101419
LMArena Creative Writing15071384
EQ-Bench Creative Writing21621366
LMArena Multi-Turn14921432
Short-Story Creative Writing—83%
WildBench—86.6%

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Qwen3 235B-A22B?

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 43.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 235B-A22B costs 16× 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 235B-A22B?

Qwen3 235B-A22B is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.

Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen3 235B-A22B better for coding?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 44.3 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 235B-A22B share?

31 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 235B-A22B has 49.

Related comparisons

Go deeper