Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Pixtral Large
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 32.2 on the Noometry Index. Pixtral Large costs 6.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Mistral AISummary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 3 categories and Pixtral Large in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 76.7 to 21.7.
- Pixtral Large is cheaper at $2 / $6 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
- Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
- Pixtral Large has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Pixtral Large | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Mistral AI |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 32.2 |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2024-11-01 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 128K |
| Max output | 128K | 128K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 3 |
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), Pixtral Large: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Pixtral Large |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| SciCode | 63.1% | — |
| 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), Pixtral Large: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Pixtral Large |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Pixtral Large: 21.7 (#218)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Pixtral Large |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | — |
| EnigmaEval | — | 0.8% |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
| DTBench | 97.6% | — |
| LMCA | 65.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | — |
Math Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Pixtral Large: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Pixtral Large |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1525 | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Pixtral Large: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Pixtral Large |
|---|---|---|
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | — |
Multimodal Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Pixtral Large: 30.6 (#111)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Pixtral Large |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1318 | 1089 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 41.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 70% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1513 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), Pixtral Large: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Pixtral Large |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Pixtral Large: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Pixtral Large |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Pixtral Large: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Pixtral Large |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Pixtral Large: 32.9 (#278)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Pixtral Large |
|---|---|---|
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | 988 |
| LMArena Text | 1510 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Pixtral Large?
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 32.2 on the Noometry Index. Pixtral Large costs 6.7× 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 Pixtral Large?
Pixtral Large is cheaper. It lists at $2 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.
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 Pixtral Large share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Pixtral Large has 3.