Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3 Coder Next
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 34.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 Coder Next costs 69× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3 Coder Next in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 76.7 to 22.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 92.9% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 34.4% for Qwen3 Coder Next.
- Qwen3 Coder Next is cheaper at $0.12 / $0.80 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 Coder Next has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3 Coder Next | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 34.3 |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2026-02-02 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 262K |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.12 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | $0.80 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 3 |
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 Coder Next: 36.3 (#210)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 63.1% | 32.3% |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | 34.4% |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| GSO | 88.2% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | — |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Qwen3 Coder Next: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 68.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 17.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 29.6% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,422 | — |
Reasoning Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7), Qwen3 Coder Next: 22.4 (#196)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 31.1% | 0% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
| DTBench | 97.6% | — |
| LMCA | 65.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | — |
Math Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Qwen3 Coder Next: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1525 | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Qwen3 Coder Next: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Qwen3 Coder Next: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Coder Next: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Coder Next: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Qwen3 Coder Next: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Qwen3 Coder Next: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Coder Next?
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 34.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 Coder Next costs 69× 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 Coder Next?
Qwen3 Coder Next is cheaper. It lists at $0.12 per million input tokens and $0.80 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen3 Coder Next better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 36.3 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 Coder Next share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 Coder Next has 3.