Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Magistral Small
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 30.2 on the Noometry Index. Magistral Small costs 27× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 8 shared benchmarks.
Mistral AISummary
- They share 8 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 4 categories and Magistral Small in 0 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 76.7 to 6.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-1: 97.5% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 5% for Magistral Small.
- Magistral Small is cheaper at $0.50 / $1.50 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
- Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
- Magistral Small has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Magistral Small | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Mistral AI |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 30.2 |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2025-06-10 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 128K |
| Max output | 128K | 40K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | $1.50 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 10 |
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), Magistral Small: 38.4 (#176)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Magistral Small |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 63.1% | 35.2% |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| GSO | 88.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | — |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Magistral Small: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Magistral Small |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Magistral Small: 6.8 (#350)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Magistral Small |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | 0% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | 5% |
| CritPt | 31.1% | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | 3% |
| DTBench | 97.6% | 61.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | 133.19 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 6.3% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
| LMCA | 65.5% | — |
Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Magistral Small: 26.2 (#261)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Magistral Small |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 30% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1525 | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Magistral Small: 30.9 (#223)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Magistral Small |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 56.1% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Magistral Small: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Magistral Small |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1318 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 41.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 70% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1513 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), Magistral Small: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Magistral Small |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1586 | — |
| LMArena French | 1525 | — |
| LMArena German | 1500 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1543 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1534 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1521 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1516 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Magistral Small: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Magistral Small |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Magistral Small: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Magistral Small |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Magistral Small: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Magistral Small |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1510 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Magistral Small?
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 30.2 on the Noometry Index. Magistral Small costs 27× 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 Magistral Small?
Magistral Small is cheaper. It lists at $0.50 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Magistral Small better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 38.4 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 Magistral Small share?
8 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Magistral Small has 10.