Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen2.5 72B Instruct

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 72B Instruct costs 8.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.1 Anthropic

69.0

Rank #2 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

31.9

Rank #267 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 89.6 to 19.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 100% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 8.1% for Qwen2.5 72B Instruct.
  • Qwen2.5 72B Instruct is cheaper at $1.40 / $5.60 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
  • Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
  • Qwen2.5 72B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Fable 5.1Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index69.031.9
Released2026-09-012024-09
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M131K
Max output128K8K
Input $ / M tokens$10$1.40
Output $ / M tokens$50$5.60
Results tracked5243

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), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 33.2 (#260)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
WeirdML92.9%16%
LMArena Coding15281292
FrontierCode50.9%—
CursorBench51.8%—
LMArena WebDev1744—
FrontierSWE56.3%—
SciCode63.1%—
GSO88.2%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—45.8%
MirrorCode73.3%—
BigCodeBench Complete—55.9%
ALE-Bench2,143—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 22.1 (#133)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
APEX-Agents68.6%—
Remote Labor Index17.9%—
TheAgentCompany—5.7%
BALROG—16.2%
GDP.pdf29.6%—
METR Time Horizons—35.8%
Vending-Bench 25,422—

Reasoning Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 22.3 (#199)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts15261271
DTBench97.6%62.9%
LMCA65.5%13.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index164.7129
ARC-AGI-290%—
NYT Connections (extended)90%—
ARC-AGI-197.5%—
CritPt31.1%—
Chess Puzzles47%—
EBR-Bench57.1%—
Mystery Game Puzzles58%—
BIG-Bench Hard—79.8%
ForecastBench—57.5
HellaSwag—84.8%
PIQA—82.6%
WinoGrande—82.3%

Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 19.3 (#287)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%8.1%
LMArena Math15251283
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)90.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 487.8%—
ProofBench100%—
Omni-MATH—33%
MATH Level 5—63.2%
FrontierMath Erdős0%—

Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 27.0 (#253)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Expert15351245
GPQA Diamond—49.1%
Humanity's Last Exam46.5%—
SimpleQA Verified70.8%—
MMLU-Pro—63.1%
Confabulations—19.1%
GPQA (HELM)—42.6%
ARC (AI2) Challenge—94.5%
MMLU—85.3%
TriviaQA—71.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Vision1318—
Blueprint-Bench 241.9%—
Furniture Assembly70%—
LMArena Document1513—

Multilingual Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 41.0 (#213)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Non-English15071252
LMArena Chinese15861272
LMArena French15251280
LMArena German15001234
LMArena Japanese15431180
LMArena Korean15341188
LMArena Russian15211264
LMArena Spanish15161256

Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 65.5 (#221)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following15171254
IFEval—80.6%

Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 38.9 (#188)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query15221282

Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 46.7 (#215)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Text15101269
LMArena Creative Writing15071221
LMArena Multi-Turn14921272
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2162—
WildBench—80.2%

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Qwen2.5 72B Instruct?

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 72B Instruct costs 8.2× 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 Qwen2.5 72B Instruct?

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $1.40 per million input tokens and $5.60 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.

Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen2.5 72B Instruct better for coding?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 33.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Fable 5.1 does, with 1M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct share?

22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct has 43.

Related comparisons

Go deeper