Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.8 27B

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 46.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.8 27B 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 . 30 shared benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.1 Anthropic

69.0

Rank #2 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

46.0

Rank #68 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 30 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 10 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 0 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 89.6 to 37.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 100% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 16% for Qwen3.8 27B.
  • Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper at $0.99 / $1.49 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
  • Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
  • Qwen3.8 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Fable 5.1Qwen3.8 27B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index69.046.0
Released2026-09-012026-08-14
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M262K
Max output128K33K
Input $ / M tokens$10$0.99
Output $ / M tokens$50$1.49
Results tracked5231

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), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena WebDev17441593
SciCode63.1%46.6%
LMArena Coding15281482
FrontierCode50.9%—
CursorBench51.8%—
FrontierSWE56.3%—
GSO88.2%—
WeirdML92.9%—
MirrorCode73.3%—
ALE-Bench2,143—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.8 27B
APEX-Agents68.6%47.5%
Remote Labor Index17.9%—
GDP.pdf29.6%—
Vending-Bench 25,422—

Reasoning Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.8 27B
ARC-AGI-290%42.4%
NYT Connections (extended)90%54.5%
ARC-AGI-197.5%87.5%
CritPt31.1%5.4%
LMArena Hard Prompts15261460
DTBench97.6%88%
LMCA65.5%41.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index164.7149.38
Chess Puzzles47%—
EBR-Bench57.1%—
Mystery Game Puzzles58%—
Surface Evolver Bench—45%

Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.8 27B
ProofBench100%16%
LMArena Math15251456
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)90.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 487.8%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%—
FrontierMath Erdős0%—

Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Expert15351482
Humanity's Last Exam46.5%—
SimpleQA Verified70.8%—

Multimodal Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision13181271
Blueprint-Bench 241.9%—
Furniture Assembly70%—
LMArena Document1513—

Multilingual Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Non-English15071430
LMArena Chinese15861504
LMArena French15251465
LMArena German15001438
LMArena Japanese15431384
LMArena Korean15341393
LMArena Russian15211415
LMArena Spanish15161448

Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Instruction Following15171439

Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Longer Query15221450

Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text15101441
LMArena Creative Writing15071384
EQ-Bench Creative Writing21621671
LMArena Multi-Turn14921441

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 46.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.8 27B 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 Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.99 per million input tokens and $1.49 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.

Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 50.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Fable 5.1 does, with 1M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen3.8 27B share?

30 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper