Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.7 Flash

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 364× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 6 shared benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.1 Anthropic

69.0

Rank #2 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

39.9

Rank #156 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.7 Flash in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 89.6 to 38.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 90.2% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 19.3% for Qwen3.7 Flash.
  • Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.03 / $0.13 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.

Side by side

Claude Fable 5.1Qwen3.7 Flash
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index69.039.9
Released2026-09-012026-07-15
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1M1M
Max output128K131K
Input $ / M tokens$10$0.03
Output $ / M tokens$50$0.13
Results tracked527

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), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.7 Flash
FrontierCode50.9%—
CursorBench51.8%—
LMArena WebDev1744—
FrontierSWE56.3%—
SciCode63.1%—
GSO88.2%—
WeirdML92.9%—
LMArena Coding1528—
MirrorCode73.3%—
ALE-Bench2,143—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.7 Flash
APEX-Agents68.6%—
Remote Labor Index17.9%—
GDP.pdf29.6%—
Vending-Bench 25,422—

Reasoning Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7), Qwen3.7 Flash: 28.2 (#108)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.7 Flash
NYT Connections (extended)90%43.8%
Chess Puzzles47%23%
Mystery Game Puzzles58%15%
Epoch Capabilities Index164.7144.64
ARC-AGI-290%—
ARC-AGI-197.5%—
CritPt31.1%—
EBR-Bench57.1%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1526—
DTBench97.6%—
LMCA65.5%—

Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Qwen3.7 Flash: 38.3 (#140)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.7 Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)90.2%19.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%86.7%
FrontierMath Tier 487.8%—
ProofBench100%—
LMArena Math1525—
FrontierMath Erdős0%—

Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Qwen3.7 Flash: 48.9 (#75)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.7 Flash
GPQA Diamond—82.3%
Humanity's Last Exam46.5%—
SimpleQA Verified70.8%—
LMArena Expert1535—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Vision1318—
Blueprint-Bench 241.9%—
Furniture Assembly70%—
LMArena Document1513—

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Non-English1507—
LMArena Chinese1586—
LMArena French1525—
LMArena German1500—
LMArena Japanese1543—
LMArena Korean1534—
LMArena Russian1521—
LMArena Spanish1516—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following1517—

Long Context Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Longer Query1522—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Text1510—
LMArena Creative Writing1507—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2162—
LMArena Multi-Turn1492—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Qwen3.7 Flash?

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 364× 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 Qwen3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.03 per million input tokens and $0.13 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 Qwen3.7 Flash share?

6 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Flash has 7.

Related comparisons

Go deeper