Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM-4.7

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7 costs 20× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 27 shared benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.1 Anthropic

68.5

Rank #2 Confirmed

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.7

Rank #117 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 27 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 9 categories and GLM-4.7 in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 76.7 to 23.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 100% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 6% for GLM-4.7.
  • GLM-4.7 is cheaper at $0.60 / $2.20 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
  • Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 205K.
  • GLM-4.7 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7
ProviderAnthropicZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index68.541.7
Released2026-09-012025-12-22
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M205K
Max output128K131K
Input $ / M tokens$10$0.60
Output $ / M tokens$50$2.20
Results tracked5036

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: 70.5 (#2), GLM-4.7: 43.6 (#74)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7
LMArena WebDev17531435
SciCode63.1%45.1%
LMArena Coding15231454
ALE-Bench2,143399.48
FrontierCode50.9%—
CursorBench51.8%—
FrontierSWE56.3%—
WeirdML92.9%—
MirrorCode73.3%—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 50.8 (#5), GLM-4.7: 26.4 (#96)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7
Vending-Bench 25,4222,377
Terminal-Bench—33.4%
APEX-Agents68.6%—
Remote Labor Index17.9%—
GDP.pdf29.6%—

Reasoning Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#5), GLM-4.7: 23.7 (#161)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7
CritPt31.1%1.7%
Chess Puzzles47%6%
LMArena Hard Prompts15261443
Epoch Capabilities Index165143.53
ARC-AGI-290%—
SimpleBench—47.7%
NYT Connections (extended)90%—
ARC-AGI-197.5%—
EBR-Bench57.1%—
Mystery Game Puzzles58%—
DTBench97.6%—
LMCA65.5%—

Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 89.5 (#3), GLM-4.7: 37.7 (#92)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%83.3%
ProofBench100%6%
LMArena Math15191423
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)90.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 487.8%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—2.4%
FrontierMath Erdős0%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 69.3 (#5), GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#74)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7
SimpleQA Verified70.8%32.2%
LMArena Expert15281424
GPQA Diamond—83.3%
Humanity's Last Exam46.5%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—11.7%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 54.1 (#4), GLM-4.7: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7
LMArena Vision1319—
Blueprint-Bench 241.9%—
Furniture Assembly70%—
LMArena Document1513—

Multilingual Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 59.5 (#2), GLM-4.7: 53.0 (#75)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7
LMArena Non-English15091417
LMArena Chinese15891495
LMArena French15321432
LMArena German14951426
LMArena Japanese15651439
LMArena Russian15251423
LMArena Spanish15031433
LMArena Korean—1401

Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.3 (#6), GLM-4.7: 74.6 (#90)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7
LMArena Instruction Following15151411

Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 46.8 (#19), GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#111)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7
LMArena Longer Query15241432
CL-bench—15.9%
CL-bench Life—10.9%

Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.3 (#1), GLM-4.7: 61.1 (#89)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7
LMArena Text15111436
LMArena Creative Writing15071401
EQ-Bench Creative Writing21621413
LMArena Multi-Turn14921446

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than GLM-4.7?

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7 costs 20× 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 GLM-4.7?

GLM-4.7 is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.

Is Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM-4.7 better for coding?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 70.5 versus 43.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Fable 5.1 does, with 1M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and GLM-4.7 share?

27 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 50 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7 has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper