Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM-4.7-Flash

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 138× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.1 Anthropic

68.5

Rank #2 Confirmed

GLM-4.7-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

38.4

Rank #175 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and GLM-4.7-Flash 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 20.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 47% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 0% for GLM-4.7-Flash.
  • GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
  • Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
  • GLM-4.7-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7-Flash
ProviderAnthropicZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index68.538.4
Released2026-09-012026-01-19
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M200K
Max output128K131K
Input $ / M tokens$10$0.06
Output $ / M tokens$50$0.40
Results tracked5021

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-Flash: 40.0 (#133)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Coding15231383
FrontierCode50.9%—
CursorBench51.8%—
LMArena WebDev1753—
FrontierSWE56.3%—
SciCode63.1%—
WeirdML92.9%—
MirrorCode73.3%—
ALE-Bench2,143—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 50.8 (#5), GLM-4.7-Flash: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7-Flash
APEX-Agents68.6%—
Remote Labor Index17.9%—
GDP.pdf29.6%—
Vending-Bench 25,422—

Reasoning Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#5), GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.2 (#224)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7-Flash
Chess Puzzles47%0%
LMArena Hard Prompts15261356
ARC-AGI-290%—
NYT Connections (extended)90%—
ARC-AGI-197.5%—
CritPt31.1%—
EBR-Bench57.1%—
Mystery Game Puzzles58%—
DTBench97.6%—
LMCA65.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index165—

Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 89.5 (#3), GLM-4.7-Flash: 34.4 (#159)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7-Flash
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%58.3%
LMArena Math15191354
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)90.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 487.8%—
ProofBench100%—
FrontierMath Erdős0%—

Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 69.3 (#5), GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.4 (#177)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Expert15281357
GPQA Diamond—60.5%
Humanity's Last Exam46.5%—
SimpleQA Verified70.8%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—9.3%

Multimodal Not comparable

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

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7-Flash
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-Flash: 46.8 (#152)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Non-English15091331
LMArena Chinese15891403
LMArena French15321332
LMArena German14951336
LMArena Russian15251333
LMArena Spanish15031351
LMArena Japanese1565—
LMArena Korean—1284

Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.3 (#6), GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.3 (#162)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following15151327

Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 46.8 (#19), GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#143)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Longer Query15241345

Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.3 (#1), GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.7 (#206)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Text15111351
LMArena Creative Writing15071297
EQ-Bench Creative Writing21621125
LMArena Multi-Turn14921342

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than GLM-4.7-Flash?

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 138× 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-Flash?

GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.

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

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 70.5 versus 40.0 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Fable 5.1 does, with 1M tokens against 200K.

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

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 50 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7-Flash has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper