Claude Fable 5.1vsQwen3.8-Max
Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.8-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | — | 2.4T |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | 1M | 1M |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $10.00 | — |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $50.00 | — |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | $0.25 | — |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | — | $2.00Alibaba |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $6.00Alibaba |
| Benchmarks | ||
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | 81.2% | 67.7% |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 65% | 43.6% |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | — | 94% |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | 89.1% | — |
SWE-Bench MultimodalMultimodal coding — Real bug reports that arrive with pictures attached — a screenshot, a mockup, a page rendering wrongly — so the AI has to read the image as well as the code to work out what to fix. Higher is better. | 54.7% | — |
PaperBenchResearch reproduction — reproducing the results of an ML research paper end to end | — | 93% |
Terminal-Bench 4.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Version 4.0 recalibrated how much time, CPU and memory each task gets, removed eight tasks and fixed nineteen, so fewer runs fail for reasons that have nothing to do with the model. Scores are not comparable with earlier versions. Higher is better. | 55.8% | — |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | — | 86.6% |
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1Agentic scientific computing — The same command-line setup as Terminal-Bench, pointed at scientific work: the AI has to drive research tooling and computational workflows through to a result, rather than administer a machine. Version 0.1 is the first release of the task set, and scores run lower than on the general board. Higher is better. | 52.6% | — |
JobBenchProfessional tool use — Tests the AI on professional workplace tasks that require using real work tools — the kind of multi-step jobs an office worker handles. Higher is better. | — | 53.4% |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | 60.9% | — |
ARC-AGI-2Abstract reasoning — Puzzle-style tests of abstract reasoning and pattern-finding — the kind of thing people find easy but AIs often struggle with. Higher is better. | 90% | — |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | — | 86.1% |
AutomationBenchBusiness workflows — Tests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | 31.4% | — |
HealthBench ProfessionalHealth — Realistic health conversations graded against detailed rubrics written by physicians — can the AI respond the way a careful medical professional would? Higher is better. | 62.1% | — |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 1853 | — |
AA-BriefcaseKnowledge work — Artificial Analysis agentic office-work eval (Elo) | 1694 | — |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | — | 88.4% |
BabyVisionVisual reasoning — Tests core visual reasoning — seeing and understanding images the way even young children can, which AIs often find surprisingly hard. Higher is better. | — | 82% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | Qwen |
| Release date | Sep 1 2026 | Aug 3 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Other comparisons
Claude Fable 5.1vsGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.8-MaxvsGPT-5.6 SolClaude Fable 5.1vsGemini 3.7 FlashQwen3.8-MaxvsGemini 3.7 FlashClaude Fable 5.1vsMuse GlimmerQwen3.8-MaxvsMuse GlimmerClaude Fable 5.1vsGrok 4.6Qwen3.8-MaxvsGrok 4.6Claude Fable 5.1vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Qwen3.8-MaxvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Claude Fable 5.1vsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen3.8-MaxvsMistral Medium 3.5
Frequently asked questions
Claude Fable 5.1 leads Qwen3.8-Max on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Pro, Humanity's Last Exam). Only Claude Fable 5.1 has a verified first-party API price: $10.00 per million input tokens and $50.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Qwen3.8-Max. Qwen3.8-Max shipped 29 days before Claude Fable 5.1, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Claude Fable 5.1) vs 1M (Qwen3.8-Max).
On SWE-Bench Pro, Claude Fable 5.1 leads at 81.2% vs Qwen3.8-Max at 67.7%. On Humanity's Last Exam · with tools, Claude Fable 5.1 leads at 65% vs Qwen3.8-Max at 43.6%.
Claude Fable 5.1 was released by Anthropic on Sep 1 2026.
Qwen3.8-Max was released by Qwen on Aug 3 2026.
Claude Fable 5.1 leads on SWE-Bench Pro — Claude Fable 5.1 81.2% vs Qwen3.8-Max 67.7%.
Claude Fable 5.1 leads on Humanity's Last Exam · with tools — Claude Fable 5.1 65% vs Qwen3.8-Max 43.6%.
Only Claude Fable 5.1 has a verified first-party API price: $10.00 per million input tokens and $50.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Qwen3.8-Max. Rates are pay-as-you-go API prices verified on September 1, 2026.
Claude Fable 5.1 has a 1M context window; Qwen3.8-Max has 1M.