Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.5-Flash
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 114× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 28 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 28 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash 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 37.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 90.2% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 18.2% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 32 |
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), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | 1244 |
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | 1412 |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | 221.8 |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| SciCode | 63.1% | — |
| GSO | 88.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | — |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,422 | 462.69 |
| APEX-Agents | 68.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 17.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 29.6% | — |
Reasoning Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | 21% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1403 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | 20% |
| DTBench | 97.6% | 82.9% |
| LMCA | 65.5% | 29.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | 143.98 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.1% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 84.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1525 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | 20.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | 1407 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 82.3% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.5% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1318 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 41.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 70% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1513 | — |
Multilingual Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1586 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1525 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1500 | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1543 | 1368 |
| LMArena Korean | 1534 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1521 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1516 | 1400 |
Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1374 |
Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | 1392 |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1510 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | 1393 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 114× 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 Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
28 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.