Winner: Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Mythos 5
For most workflows, Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger default — new frontier leader — better than fable 5 on every published benchmark, and cheaper to run.
Last verified Sep 1, 2026/Model data modified Sep 1, 2026
Rankings refresh dailyScored on 6 criteriaNo paid rankings
AnthropicPremium
Input cost
$10.00/1M
Context
1M tokens
Speed
Deliberate
Clear recommendation block
The shortest way to see the safest default, the lower-cost option, and the specialist pick before you read deeper.
Claude Mythos 5 is the better pick when response speed matters more than maximum reasoning depth.
AnthropicPremium
Best for
Frontier cybersecurity research, autonomous vulnerability discovery, and the absolute capability ceiling
Price
$10.00/1M
Context
1M tokens
Why this page recommends it
Claude Fable 5.1 leads on coding with a score of 100 vs 100 for Claude Mythos 5.
Both models are similarly priced — the decision comes down to capability, not cost.
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger default for coding tasks.
Decision notes
Claude Fable 5.1 is the safer default: it is built for frontier agentic coding, long-horizon autonomous work, and agentic scientific research, which covers most of what people bring to this comparison.
Choose Claude Mythos 5 when your work is mostly frontier cybersecurity research and autonomous vulnerability discovery — that is the workload it was tuned for.
Both models serve different primary workflows — Claude Fable 5.1 for frontier agentic coding and long-horizon autonomous work, Claude Mythos 5 for frontier cybersecurity research and autonomous vulnerability discovery — so running each where it has a clear edge often beats forcing one to do both.
Interactive decision lab
Test the recommendation against your priority
Switch the scoring lens to see whether the top answer changes when you care more about cost, speed, or long-document work.
#1Claude Fable 5.191 pts
#2Claude Mythos 590 pts
Quality first
Claude Fable 5.1
Anthropic / Premium / Sep 1, 2026
91
New frontier leader — better than Fable 5 on every published benchmark, and cheaper to run.
Ranks models by the broadest mix of coding, writing, research, and long-context usefulness.
You need low latency, or your workload is uncached and cost-sensitive — Claude Opus 5 is half the base price and within a few points on agentic coding.
Recommended comparisons
The fastest way to see where the recommendation shifts when your priority changes.
Capability scores are out of 100 and reflect our own weighting of published benchmarks and production signals — see how we evaluate models. “Est. month” assumes 10M input and 2M output tokens at list price, with no batch or caching discounts applied, so treat it as a ceiling.
The case for each model
What each one is genuinely good at, where it falls down, and the situations we would steer you away from it — not just the headline score.
Anthropic's September 1, 2026 frontier release and the new capability ceiling for coding, agents, and scientific work. Base pricing is unchanged at $10/$50, but cache reads dropped 75% to $0.25/1M — roughly 25% cheaper on typical workloads and up to 45% cheaper on agentic ones. 1M context, 128K output, adaptive thinking always on.
Input
$10.00/1M
Output
$50.00/1M
Context
1M tokens
Speed
Deliberate
What people actually use it for
Agentic scientific research — 52.6% on Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1, more than double Fable 5's 24.7%
Long-running autonomous coding agents that plan, run, and debug across a whole repository
Cache-heavy agent loops where the 75% cache-read cut ($1.00 → $0.25 per 1M) is the real saving
Where it wins
52.6% Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 — 2.1x Fable 5 (24.7%), well clear of Opus 5 (29.0%) and GPT-5.6 Sol (22.4%)
55.8% Terminal-Bench 4.0 agentic coding, ahead of Opus 5 (52.3%) and Fable 5 (42.0%)
Cache reads cut 75% to $0.25/1M — ~25% cheaper for typical use, ~45% for heavily agentic work
Independent Vals AI evaluation ranks it #1 of 51 on the Vals Index, #1 on LiveCodeBench (90.5%) and MMLU Pro (92.4%)
1M-token context and 128K max output at standard rates, with adaptive thinking always enabled
Where it falls down
Base rates are still $10/$50 per 1M — double Claude Opus 5 for anything that is not cache-heavy
Anthropic published no SWE-bench Verified or SWE-bench Pro figure for 5.1 at launch
On Claude Pro it only runs on pay-as-you-go credits; Max includes it up to 50% of weekly limits
Deliberate, high-latency profile — the wrong choice for interactive, latency-bound apps
Skip it if
You need low latency, or your workload is uncached and cost-sensitive — Claude Opus 5 is half the base price and within a few points on agentic coding.
Our verdict
The new frontier leader, and the rare upgrade that costs less than the model it replaces. Base $10/$50 pricing did not move, but a 75% cut to cache reads makes typical workloads ~25% cheaper than Fable 5 and heavily agentic ones ~45% cheaper — while more than doubling Fable 5 on agentic science and beating Opus 5 on agentic coding. If you were already on Fable 5, switching is a straight win. If you were on Opus 5 for the price, it still costs 2x on uncached tokens.
Released September 1, 2026 alongside Claude Mythos 5.1, the first update to the Mythos-class line since Fable 5 on June 9. API ID claude-fable-5-1; generally available on the Claude API, Amazon Bedrock, Google Cloud, and Microsoft Foundry. Published launch numbers (Fable 5.1 / Fable 5 / Opus 5 / GPT-5.6 Sol): Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 52.6 / 24.7 / 29.0 / 22.4; Terminal-Bench 4.0 55.8 / 42.0 / 52.3 / 37.3; CursorBench 3.2.0 73.4 / 70.5 / 70.0 / 67.2; AutomationBench 31.4 / 17.1 / 26.9 / 19.6; OSWorld 2.0 strict 41.7 / 36.1 / 39.6; Humanity's Last Exam (no tools) 60.9 / 57.8 / 56.6; GDPval-AA v2 1853 / 1723 / 1824 / 1711. GDPval-AA v2 is rescaled from the v1 numbers quoted on the Fable 5 page and is not directly comparable to them.
Anthropic's most powerful frontier model — the same underlying model as Fable 5 with safeguards lifted in some areas, restricted to vetted enterprise and research partners. The capability ceiling of mid-2026.
Input
$10.00/1M
Output
$50.00/1M
Context
1M tokens
Speed
Deliberate
What people actually use it for
Multi-step cybersecurity workflows: vulnerability discovery, exploit reasoning, and containment analysis
High-stakes autonomous engineering where the safety-tuned Fable 5 is too constrained
Frontier research programs running under Anthropic's vetted-partner access controls
Where it wins
80.3% SWE-Bench Pro — tied with Fable 5 as the highest public coding score of any model
Safeguards lifted in some areas for advanced security and research workloads
Excels at complex, multi-step cybersecurity tasks under partner access
Same 1M-token context and 1932 GDPval-AA score as Fable 5
Where it falls down
Not generally available — limited to vetted partners after Project Glasswing's private preview
Most teams should use Fable 5, which is the same model with standard safeguards
Premium $10/$50 pricing and a deliberate, high-latency profile
Skip it if
You don't have vetted-partner access or don't need lifted safeguards — Fable 5 is the same model, generally available, at the same price.
Our verdict
The most capable model Anthropic has ever shipped — but access is gated to vetted partners because its safeguards are lifted in high-risk areas. For everyone else, Fable 5 is the same model at the same price with standard safety controls. Choose Mythos 5 only if you have partner access and need its security ceiling.
Launched June 9, 2026 alongside Fable 5, following the April Project Glasswing private preview on Google Cloud. Restricted to vetted enterprise and research partners due to advanced cybersecurity capabilities. Same underlying model and benchmarks as Claude Fable 5. Superseded by Claude Mythos 5.1 on September 1, 2026.
UseRightAI recommendations are based on practical decision factors people actually feel in day-to-day use.
Newsletter
Get updates when claude fable 5.1 vs claude mythos 5 changes
Useful if you care about ranking shifts, pricing changes, or a better recommendation appearing in this decision path.
No spam. Useful updates only. Affiliate disclosures always clearly labeled.
FAQ
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Claude Mythos 5?
Claude Fable 5.1 wins on more of the categories we score — coding, research, long context — so it is the better default of the two. Claude Mythos 5 is the better pick when your work is mostly frontier cybersecurity research and autonomous vulnerability discovery. Neither is universally "better": Claude Fable 5.1 is aimed at frontier agentic coding and long-horizon autonomous work, Claude Mythos 5 at frontier cybersecurity research and autonomous vulnerability discovery.
Which is cheaper — Claude Fable 5.1 or Claude Mythos 5?
Both models are similarly priced at $10/1M input tokens. The decision should come down to capability, not cost.
Which has a larger context window — Claude Fable 5.1 or Claude Mythos 5?
Both Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5 have the same 1M context window.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Claude Mythos 5 better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5 are similarly matched on coding. Claude Fable 5.1 is the overall coding leader in this directory at 100/100.
Which is faster — Claude Fable 5.1 or Claude Mythos 5?
Both Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5 have similar speed profiles — rated deliberate. Neither will be the bottleneck if latency is your deciding factor.
What are the downsides of Claude Fable 5.1?
Base rates are still $10/$50 per 1M — double Claude Opus 5 for anything that is not cache-heavy. Anthropic published no SWE-bench Verified or SWE-bench Pro figure for 5.1 at launch. On Claude Pro it only runs on pay-as-you-go credits; Max includes it up to 50% of weekly limits. Avoid it if you need low latency, or your workload is uncached and cost-sensitive — Claude Opus 5 is half the base price and within a few points on agentic coding. That is the main case for looking at Claude Mythos 5 instead.
What are the downsides of Claude Mythos 5?
Not generally available — limited to vetted partners after Project Glasswing's private preview. Most teams should use Fable 5, which is the same model with standard safeguards. Premium $10/$50 pricing and a deliberate, high-latency profile. Avoid it if you don't have vetted-partner access or don't need lifted safeguards — Fable 5 is the same model, generally available, at the same price. Against Claude Fable 5.1 specifically, the two are close enough on capability that price and speed decide it.
What does a month of real work cost on Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Mythos 5?
Take a moderate workload of 10M input and 2M output tokens a month. Claude Fable 5.1 runs $200.00 (at $10/1M in and $50/1M out); Claude Mythos 5 runs $200.00 (at $10/1M in and $50/1M out). The gap is small enough that price should not decide this one. Output tokens dominate the bill on both, so prompt length matters far less than response length.
Can I use Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5 together?
Yes, and for most teams that beats picking one. A common split is Claude Fable 5.1 for frontier agentic coding and long-horizon autonomous work, with Claude Mythos 5 handling frontier cybersecurity research and autonomous vulnerability discovery. Since Claude Fable 5.1 is both the stronger and the cheaper option here, a split mainly makes sense if Claude Mythos 5 covers a capability you specifically need.