Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 37.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
NVIDIASummary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 89.6 to 35.5.
- Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | NVIDIA |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 37.6 |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2024-12-18 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | — |
| Results tracked | 52 | 14 |
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), Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct: 35.9 (#216)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | 1272 |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| SciCode | 63.1% | — |
| GSO | 88.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 38.7% |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 48.2% |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct: 25.0 (#152)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1266 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
| DTBench | 97.6% | — |
| LMCA | 65.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | — |
Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct: 35.5 (#182)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1525 | 1271 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct: 34.1 (#199)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | 1242 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct: 40.5 (#217)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1245 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1586 | 1263 |
| LMArena Russian | 1521 | 1227 |
| LMArena French | 1525 | — |
| LMArena German | 1500 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1543 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1534 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1516 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct: 65.9 (#213)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1252 |
Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct: 37.6 (#215)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | 1238 |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct: 48.4 (#203)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1510 | 1283 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | 1269 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | 1275 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct?
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 37.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 35.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct has 14.