Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen1.5-32B

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.1 Anthropic

69.0

Rank #2 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.5

Rank #293 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-32B 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 33.0.
  • Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5-32B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index69.030.5
Released2026-09-012024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$10—
Output $ / M tokens$50—
Results tracked5221

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), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Coding15281155
FrontierCode50.9%—
CursorBench51.8%—
LMArena WebDev1744—
FrontierSWE56.3%—
SciCode63.1%—
GSO88.2%—
WeirdML92.9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—32.3%
MirrorCode73.3%—
BigCodeBench Complete—42%
ALE-Bench2,143—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5-32B
APEX-Agents68.6%—
Remote Labor Index17.9%—
GDP.pdf29.6%—
Vending-Bench 25,422—

Reasoning Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7), Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts15261130
ARC-AGI-290%—
NYT Connections (extended)90%—
ARC-AGI-197.5%—
CritPt31.1%—
Chess Puzzles47%—
EBR-Bench57.1%—
Mystery Game Puzzles58%—
DTBench97.6%—
LMCA65.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index164.7—

Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Math15251155
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)90.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 487.8%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%—
ProofBench100%—
FrontierMath Erdős0%—

Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Expert15351126
GPQA Diamond—30.7%
Humanity's Last Exam46.5%—
SimpleQA Verified70.8%—
MMLU—74.4%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Vision1318—
Blueprint-Bench 241.9%—
Furniture Assembly70%—
LMArena Document1513—

Multilingual Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Non-English15071106
LMArena Chinese15861177
LMArena French15251101
LMArena German15001058
LMArena Japanese15431027
LMArena Korean15341008
LMArena Russian15211073
LMArena Spanish15161089

Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Instruction Following15171116

Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Longer Query15221146

Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Text15101137
LMArena Creative Writing15071083
LMArena Multi-Turn14921140
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2162—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Qwen1.5-32B?

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen1.5-32B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper