Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 47.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Plus costs 18× 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.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 31 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3.6 Plus 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 29.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 90.2% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 38.2% for Qwen3.6 Plus.
- Qwen3.6 Plus is cheaper at $0.50 / $3 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 47.5 |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2026-03-31 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | $3 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 37 |
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), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.8 (#130)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | 1461 |
| SciCode | 63.1% | 40.7% |
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | 1467 |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | 670.15 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 57.9% |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| GSO | 88.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | — |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Qwen3.6 Plus: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,422 | 5,115 |
| 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), Qwen3.6 Plus: 29.3 (#93)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | 60.3% |
| CritPt | 31.1% | 2.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | 17% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1449 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | 12% |
| DTBench | 97.6% | 81.9% |
| LMCA | 65.5% | 33.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | 147.65 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 59.5% |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Qwen3.6 Plus: 51.8 (#54)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | 38.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 93.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1525 | 1450 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 26.2% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 8.3% |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#45)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | 44.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | 1454 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 88.4% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Qwen3.6 Plus: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.3 (#70)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1424 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1586 | 1477 |
| LMArena French | 1525 | 1455 |
| LMArena German | 1500 | 1452 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1543 | 1389 |
| LMArena Korean | 1534 | 1379 |
| LMArena Russian | 1521 | 1434 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1516 | 1432 |
Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.0 (#74)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1425 |
Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.2 (#49)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | 1439 |
| CL-bench | — | 20.3% |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.2 (#82)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1510 | 1437 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | 1404 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | 1438 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Qwen3.6 Plus?
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 47.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Plus costs 18× 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 Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.50 per million input tokens and $3 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 40.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen3.6 Plus share?
31 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.