Model comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Phi-3.5-MoE

Claude Fable 5.1 has enough public results to be ranked (#2); Phi-3.5-MoE does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.1 Anthropic

68.5

Rank #2 Confirmed

Phi-3.5-MoE Microsoft

—

Unranked

Summary

  • Phi-3.5-MoE has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Fable 5.1 and Phi-3.5-MoE specifications
Claude Fable 5.1Phi-3.5-MoE
ProviderAnthropicMicrosoft
Noometry Index68.5—
Released2026-09-012024-08-17
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$10—
Output $ / M tokens$50—
Results tracked503

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 70.5 (#2), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Phi-3.5-MoE
FrontierCode50.9%—
CursorBench51.8%—
LMArena WebDev1753—
FrontierSWE56.3%—
SciCode63.1%—
WeirdML92.9%—
LMArena Coding1523—
MirrorCode73.3%—
ALE-Bench2,143—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 50.8 (#5), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Phi-3.5-MoE
APEX-Agents68.6%—
Remote Labor Index17.9%—
GDP.pdf29.6%—
Vending-Bench 25,422—

Reasoning Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#5), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Phi-3.5-MoE
ARC-AGI-290%—
NYT Connections (extended)90%—
ARC-AGI-197.5%—
CritPt31.1%—
Chess Puzzles47%—
EBR-Bench57.1%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1526—
Mystery Game Puzzles58%—
DTBench97.6%—
LMCA65.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index165—
PIQA—88.6%

Math Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 89.5 (#3), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Phi-3.5-MoE
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)90.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 487.8%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%—
ProofBench100%—
LMArena Math1519—
FrontierMath Erdős0%—
GSM8K—88.7%

Knowledge Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 69.3 (#5), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Phi-3.5-MoE
Humanity's Last Exam46.5%—
SimpleQA Verified70.8%—
LMArena Expert1528—
BoolQ—84.6%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 54.1 (#4), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Phi-3.5-MoE
LMArena Vision1319—
Blueprint-Bench 241.9%—
Furniture Assembly70%—
LMArena Document1513—

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 59.5 (#2), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Phi-3.5-MoE
LMArena Non-English1509—
LMArena Chinese1589—
LMArena French1532—
LMArena German1495—
LMArena Japanese1565—
LMArena Russian1525—
LMArena Spanish1503—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.3 (#6), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Phi-3.5-MoE
LMArena Instruction Following1515—

Long Context Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 46.8 (#19), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Phi-3.5-MoE
LMArena Longer Query1524—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.3 (#1), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Phi-3.5-MoE
LMArena Text1511—
LMArena Creative Writing1507—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2162—
LMArena Multi-Turn1492—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Phi-3.5-MoE?

Claude Fable 5.1 has enough public results to be ranked (#2); Phi-3.5-MoE does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Phi-3.5-MoE share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 50 scored results on Noometry and Phi-3.5-MoE has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper