Winner: Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 4.8
Claude Opus 4.8 wins on price ($5 vs $10/1M input). 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 Opus 4.8 is the better pick when response speed matters more than maximum reasoning depth.
AnthropicPremium
Best for
Hardest coding tasks, parallel agentic workflows, and high-fidelity vision
Price
$5.00/1M
Context
1M tokens
Why this page recommends it
Claude Fable 5.1 leads on coding with a score of 100 vs 100 for Claude Opus 4.8.
Claude Opus 4.8 is cheaper at $5/1M input tokens vs $10/1M for Claude Fable 5.1.
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.
Switch to Claude Opus 4.8 when your work is mostly hardest coding tasks and parallel agentic workflows; on that narrower brief it is the better tool.
Claude Opus 4.8 is the more cost-efficient option at $5/1M input — Claude Fable 5.1 costs 2x more per input token, so the gap is worth taking seriously wherever token volume rather than peak quality drives the bill.
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 Opus 4.890 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 newest Opus flagship — 69.2% SWE-Bench Pro, 88.6% SWE-Bench Verified, 1890 Arena Elo (121 pts ahead of GPT-5.5), and native parallel subagents. Same $5/$25 price as Opus 4.7.
Input
$5.00/1M
Output
$25.00/1M
Context
1M tokens
Speed
Deliberate
What people actually use it for
Running parallel subagent workflows that split, solve, and merge complex engineering tasks
Autonomous PR review and multi-file refactors where accuracy matters more than speed
Deep research synthesis across 1M-token corpora — patents, codebases, legal documents
Where it wins
69.2% SWE-Bench Pro — new #1, up from Opus 4.7's 64.3%
88.6% SWE-Bench Verified and 83.4% OSWorld computer use
Native parallel subagents: orchestrated multi-agent execution in a single call
1890 Arena Elo, 121 points ahead of GPT-5.5
Where it falls down
Deliberate pace — not the right pick for latency-sensitive applications
Same price tier as Opus 4.7; not a budget option
Skip it if
You need the highest possible coding ceiling (Fable 5 / Mythos 5), low-latency responses, or a workflow locked to OpenAI tooling.
Our verdict
The best value at the premium tier now that Claude Fable 5 leads on raw capability. 69.2% SWE-Bench Pro, 1890 Elo, and built-in parallel subagents at $5/$25 — half the price of Fable 5. The smart default for serious coding when you don't need the absolute frontier.
Launched May 27, 2026. Available on Claude API, AWS Bedrock, Google Vertex AI, Microsoft Foundry, and GitHub Copilot. Fast mode available at $10/$50 per 1M tokens.
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 opus 4.8 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 Opus 4.8?
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 Opus 4.8 is the better pick when your work is mostly hardest coding tasks and parallel agentic workflows. Neither is universally "better": Claude Fable 5.1 is aimed at frontier agentic coding and long-horizon autonomous work, Claude Opus 4.8 at hardest coding tasks and parallel agentic workflows.
Which is cheaper — Claude Fable 5.1 or Claude Opus 4.8?
Claude Opus 4.8 is cheaper at $5/1M input and $25/1M output. Claude Fable 5.1 costs $10/1M input and $50/1M output.
Which has a larger context window — Claude Fable 5.1 or Claude Opus 4.8?
Both Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Opus 4.8 have the same 1M context window.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Claude Opus 4.8 better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Opus 4.8 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 Opus 4.8?
Both Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Opus 4.8 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 Opus 4.8 instead.
What are the downsides of Claude Opus 4.8?
Deliberate pace — not the right pick for latency-sensitive applications. Same price tier as Opus 4.7; not a budget option. Avoid it if you need the highest possible coding ceiling (Fable 5 / Mythos 5), low-latency responses, or a workflow locked to OpenAI tooling. 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 Opus 4.8?
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 Opus 4.8 runs $100.00 (at $5/1M in and $25/1M out). That is a $100.00/month difference — Claude Opus 4.8 is the cheaper of the two at this volume, and the gap scales linearly as you send more. 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 Opus 4.8 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 Opus 4.8 handling hardest coding tasks and parallel agentic workflows. Routing high-volume, low-stakes calls to Claude Opus 4.8 at $5/1M and reserving Claude Fable 5.1 for the hard cases is usually the cheapest arrangement that does not cost you quality.