Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.5 Plus
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 42.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5 Plus costs 22× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 9 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 9 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen3.5 Plus in 0 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 76.7 to 32.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleQA Verified: 70.8% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 25.4% for Qwen3.5 Plus.
- Qwen3.5 Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $2.40 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.5 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 42.9 |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2026-02-16 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | $2.40 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 74.7 (#1), Qwen3.5 Plus: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | 621.92 |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| SciCode | 63.1% | — |
| GSO | 88.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | — |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Qwen3.5 Plus: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,422 | 0.54 |
| 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 Plus: 32.8 (#74)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | 22% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | 17% |
| DTBench | 97.6% | 80.5% |
| LMCA | 65.5% | 36.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | 146.78 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.1% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | — |
Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Qwen3.5 Plus: 49.6 (#61)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 86.7% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1525 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 21% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 2.1% |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Qwen3.5 Plus: 46.0 (#83)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | 25.4% |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 84.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Qwen3.5 Plus: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1318 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 41.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 70% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1513 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), Qwen3.5 Plus: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Qwen3.5 Plus: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | — |
Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Qwen3.5 Plus: 43.0 (#113)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| CL-bench | — | 19.8% |
| CL-bench Life | — | 12.4% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Qwen3.5 Plus: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Qwen3.5 Plus?
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 42.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5 Plus costs 22× 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 Plus?
Qwen3.5 Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $2.40 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen3.5 Plus share?
9 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 Plus has 15.