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.
The safest Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 4.8 default, the cheaper option worth trying first, and the specialist pick — before you read the detail below.
Claude Fable 5.1 is the strongest answer here for Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 4.8 — pick it when quality of output matters more than the $10.00/1M/1M input you pay for it.
Claude Opus 4.8 handles the same job for about 50% less per token. Start here and only move up if the output is not good enough.
Claude Fable 5.1 is the fastest of these for Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 4.8 — worth it when latency is what the reader notices, not the last few points of reasoning depth.
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.
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.
Switch the scoring lens to see whether the Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 4.8 answer changes when cost, speed, or long-document depth leads the decision.
Anthropic / Premium / Sep 3, 2026
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.
Where the Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 4.8 recommendation shifts once you weigh price or latency differently.
New frontier leader — better than Fable 5 on every published benchmark, and cheaper to run.
Best value premium coder — frontier-grade at half of Fable 5's price.
List prices and published scores — the numbers this page's pick is built from.
| Model | Input | Output | Est. month | Context | Speed | Coding | Writing | Research |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | $10.00/1M | $50.00/1M | $200 | 1M tokens | Deliberate | 100 | 98 | 100 |
| Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | $5.00/1M | $25.00/1M | $100 | 1M tokens | Deliberate | 100 | 96 | 98 |
Scores out of 100 — how we evaluate models. “Est. month” is 10M in / 2M out at list price: a ceiling, no discounts.
Why each one is on the shortlist for Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 4.8, what it is genuinely good at, and where we would steer you away from it.
Our pick for Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 4.8. It scores 100/100 on the coding axis we weight this page by, and nothing else in this shortlist matches it on output quality.
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.
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.
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.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the Claude Fable 5.1 page.
The cost-conscious pick for Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 4.8, about 50% less per token than Claude Fable 5.1 than the top choice while holding 100/100 on coding.
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.
You need low-latency responses, image generation, or a workflow locked to OpenAI tooling.
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.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the Claude Opus 4.8 page.
UseRightAI recommendations are based on practical decision factors people actually feel in day-to-day use.
Newsletter
We email when the Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 4.8 pick changes, when one of these models moves on price, or when something new displaces the current leader.
No spam. Useful updates only. Affiliate disclosures always clearly labeled.
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.
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.
Both Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Opus 4.8 have the same 1M context window.
Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Opus 4.8 are similarly matched on coding. GPT-6 Astra is the overall coding leader in this directory at 100/100.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.