Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Command R
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 76× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
CohereSummary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Command R in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 76.7 to 13.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 65.5% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 9.2% for Command R.
- Command R is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
- Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
- Command R has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Command R | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Cohere |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 31.4 |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2024-08-30 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 128K |
| Max output | 128K | 4K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.15 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | $0.60 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 29 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 74.7 (#1), Command R: 29.3 (#306)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Command R |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | 1169 |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| SciCode | 63.1% | — |
| GSO | 88.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 37.1% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 17.9% |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 45.2% |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Command R: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Command R |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 68.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 17.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 29.6% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,422 | — |
Reasoning Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7), Command R: 13.8 (#331)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Command R |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1164 |
| DTBench | 97.6% | 46.4% |
| LMCA | 65.5% | 9.2% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 21.9% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 33.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | — |
| LiveBench | — | 27.5% |
Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Command R: 28.0 (#246)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Command R |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1525 | 1155 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 19.4% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Command R: 31.0 (#221)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Command R |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | 1138 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |
| MMLU | — | 65.2% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Command R: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Command R |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1318 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 41.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 70% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1513 | — |
Multilingual Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), Command R: 35.7 (#245)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Command R |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1174 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1586 | 1182 |
| LMArena French | 1525 | 1162 |
| LMArena German | 1500 | 1176 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1543 | 1143 |
| LMArena Korean | 1534 | 1163 |
| LMArena Russian | 1521 | 1174 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1516 | 1151 |
Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Command R: 58.1 (#261)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Command R |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1167 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 55.6% |
Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Command R: 36.3 (#231)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Command R |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | 1198 |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Command R: 38.2 (#254)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Command R |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1510 | 1187 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | 1170 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | 1163 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 16.7% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Command R?
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 76× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or Command R?
Command R is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Command R better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 29.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Fable 5.1 does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Command R share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Command R has 29.