Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Llama 3.2 90B

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 27.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.1 Anthropic

69.0

Rank #2 Confirmed

Llama 3.2 90B Meta

27.5

Rank #331 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 5 categories and Llama 3.2 90B in 0 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 89.6 to 11.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 100% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 2.6% for Llama 3.2 90B.
  • Llama 3.2 90B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Fable 5.1Llama 3.2 90B
ProviderAnthropicMeta
Noometry Index69.027.5
Released2026-09-012024-09-24
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$10—
Output $ / M tokens$50—
Results tracked529

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 74.7 (#1), Llama 3.2 90B: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama 3.2 90B
FrontierCode50.9%—
CursorBench51.8%—
LMArena WebDev1744—
FrontierSWE56.3%—
SciCode63.1%—
GSO88.2%—
WeirdML92.9%—
LMArena Coding1528—
MirrorCode73.3%—
ALE-Bench2,143—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Llama 3.2 90B: 30.0 (#80)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama 3.2 90B
APEX-Agents68.6%—
Remote Labor Index17.9%—
BALROG—27.3%
GDP.pdf29.6%—
Vending-Bench 25,422—

Reasoning Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7), Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#217)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama 3.2 90B
Epoch Capabilities Index164.7125.5
ARC-AGI-290%—
NYT Connections (extended)90%—
ARC-AGI-197.5%—
CritPt31.1%—
Chess Puzzles47%—
EnigmaEval—0.4%
EBR-Bench57.1%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1526—
Mystery Game Puzzles58%—
DTBench97.6%—
LMCA65.5%—

Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Llama 3.2 90B: 11.1 (#308)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama 3.2 90B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%2.6%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)90.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 487.8%—
ProofBench100%—
LMArena Math1525—
MATH Level 5—39.4%
FrontierMath Erdős0%—

Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#274)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama 3.2 90B
GPQA Diamond—41%
Humanity's Last Exam46.5%—
SimpleQA Verified70.8%—
LMArena Expert1535—
MMLU—80.3%

Multimodal Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Llama 3.2 90B: 25.4 (#124)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama 3.2 90B
LMArena Vision13181000
GeoBench—52%
Blueprint-Bench 241.9%—
Furniture Assembly70%—
LMArena Document1513—

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), Llama 3.2 90B: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama 3.2 90B
LMArena Non-English1507—
LMArena Chinese1586—
LMArena French1525—
LMArena German1500—
LMArena Japanese1543—
LMArena Korean1534—
LMArena Russian1521—
LMArena Spanish1516—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Llama 3.2 90B: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama 3.2 90B
LMArena Instruction Following1517—

Long Context Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Llama 3.2 90B: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama 3.2 90B
LMArena Longer Query1522—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Llama 3.2 90B: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama 3.2 90B
LMArena Text1510—
LMArena Creative Writing1507—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2162—
LMArena Multi-Turn1492—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Llama 3.2 90B?

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 27.5 on the Noometry Index.

How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Llama 3.2 90B share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 90B has 9.

Related comparisons

Go deeper