Winner: Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Sonnet 5
Claude Fable 5.1 wins on coding (100 vs 98). Claude Sonnet 5 wins on price ($3 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 Sonnet 5 is the better pick when response speed matters more than maximum reasoning depth.
AnthropicPremium
Best for
High-volume agentic workloads and production apps at mid-tier pricing
Price
$3.00/1M
Context
1M tokens
Why this page recommends it
Claude Fable 5.1 leads on coding with a score of 100 vs 98 for Claude Sonnet 5.
Claude Sonnet 5 is cheaper at $3/1M 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.
Claude Sonnet 5 earns its place when your work is mostly high-volume agentic workloads and production apps at mid-tier pricing, even though it loses the overall count here.
Claude Sonnet 5 is the more cost-efficient option at $3/1M input — Claude Fable 5.1 costs 3x 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 Sonnet 591 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 agentic Sonnet yet — a fast 1M-context workhorse that narrows the gap to Opus-class quality at $3/$15, and the new default model on claude.ai.
Input
$3.00/1M
Output
$15.00/1M
Context
1M tokens
Speed
Fast
What people actually use it for
Production agent loops that plan, call tools, verify output, and finish multi-step tasks
High-volume coding assistance at one-fifth of Opus 5's price
Computer-use automation — 78.5% on OSWorld-Verified
Where it wins
72.7% on SWE-bench Verified (vs Sonnet 4.6's 62.3% on the same eval) with launch promo pricing of $2/$10 through August 31, 2026
78.5% OSWorld-Verified computer use and 46.8% on Humanity's Last Exam with tools
1M-token context in the fast Sonnet latency class — Opus-adjacent quality without Opus latency
Where it falls down
Clearly behind Opus 5 and Fable 5 on the hardest reasoning and long-horizon agent tasks
Updated tokenizer produces ~1.0–1.35x more tokens for the same text, so effective cost runs above sticker price
Skip it if
You need the absolute top coding ceiling — Opus 5 leads SWE-bench Verified by over 20 points.
Our verdict
The best price-to-capability pick in the Claude lineup. Sonnet 5 replaces Sonnet 4.6 as the production default: markedly better agentic coding and computer use at the same standard price, with a $2/$10 promo through August 2026.
Released June 30, 2026. Default model for Free and Pro claude.ai plans. Promo pricing $2/$10 per 1M through Aug 31, 2026, then $3/$15. 128K max output, Jan 2026 knowledge cutoff.
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 sonnet 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 Sonnet 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 Sonnet 5 is the better pick when your work is mostly high-volume agentic workloads and production apps at mid-tier pricing. Neither is universally "better": Claude Fable 5.1 is aimed at frontier agentic coding and long-horizon autonomous work, Claude Sonnet 5 at high-volume agentic workloads and production apps at mid-tier pricing.
Which is cheaper — Claude Fable 5.1 or Claude Sonnet 5?
Claude Sonnet 5 is cheaper at $3/1M input and $15/1M 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 Sonnet 5?
Both Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Sonnet 5 have the same 1M context window.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Claude Sonnet 5 better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 is better for coding with a score of 100 vs Claude Sonnet 5's 98 (out of 100). Claude Fable 5.1 is the overall coding leader in this directory at 100/100.
Which is faster — Claude Fable 5.1 or Claude Sonnet 5?
Claude Sonnet 5 is faster with a fast speed rating (score: 4) vs Claude Fable 5.1's deliberate rating (score: 2). Speed matters most for interactive and high-throughput work; for batch jobs the Claude Fable 5.1 latency penalty is usually invisible.
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 Sonnet 5 instead.
What are the downsides of Claude Sonnet 5?
Clearly behind Opus 5 and Fable 5 on the hardest reasoning and long-horizon agent tasks. Updated tokenizer produces ~1.0–1.35x more tokens for the same text, so effective cost runs above sticker price. Avoid it if you need the absolute top coding ceiling — Opus 5 leads SWE-bench Verified by over 20 points. Against Claude Fable 5.1 specifically, the gap shows up most on coding (100 vs 98).
What does a month of real work cost on Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 5 runs $60.00 (at $3/1M in and $15/1M out). That is a $140.00/month difference — Claude Sonnet 5 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 Sonnet 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 Sonnet 5 handling high-volume agentic workloads and production apps at mid-tier pricing. Routing high-volume, low-stakes calls to Claude Sonnet 5 at $3/1M and reserving Claude Fable 5.1 for the hard cases is usually the cheapest arrangement that does not cost you quality.