Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3 32B

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 32B costs 16× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.1 Anthropic

69.0

Rank #2 Confirmed

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.2

Rank #172 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen3 32B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 76.7 to 20.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 65.5% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 17.3% for Qwen3 32B.
  • Qwen3 32B is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
  • Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
  • Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Fable 5.1Qwen3 32B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index69.039.2
Released2026-09-012025-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M131K
Max output128K16K
Input $ / M tokens$10$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$50$2.80
Results tracked5226

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), Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3 32B
SciCode63.1%35.4%
LMArena Coding15281358
FrontierCode50.9%—
Aider Polyglot—40%
CursorBench51.8%—
LMArena WebDev1744—
FrontierSWE56.3%—
GSO88.2%—
WeirdML92.9%—
MirrorCode73.3%—
ALE-Bench2,143—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3 32B
APEX-Agents68.6%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—48.7%
Remote Labor Index17.9%—
GDP.pdf29.6%—
Vending-Bench 25,422—

Reasoning Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3 32B
CritPt31.1%0.3%
Chess Puzzles47%5%
LMArena Hard Prompts15261334
DTBench97.6%67.5%
LMCA65.5%17.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index164.7138.51
ARC-AGI-290%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark—54.9%
NYT Connections (extended)90%—
ARC-AGI-197.5%—
EBR-Bench57.1%—
Mystery Game Puzzles58%—

Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3 32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%66.9%
LMArena Math15251399
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)90.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 487.8%—
ProofBench100%—
FrontierMath Erdős0%—

Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3 32B
LMArena Expert15351362
GPQA Diamond—65.7%
Humanity's Last Exam46.5%—
SimpleQA Verified70.8%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—5.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Qwen3 32B: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3 32B
LMArena Vision1318—
Blueprint-Bench 241.9%—
Furniture Assembly70%—
LMArena Document1513—

Multilingual Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English15071317
LMArena Chinese15861357
LMArena German15001341
LMArena Russian15211311
LMArena French1525—
LMArena Japanese1543—
LMArena Korean1534—
LMArena Spanish1516—

Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following15171305

Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3 32B
LMArena Longer Query15221327
Fiction.LiveBench—74.2%

Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3 32B
LMArena Text15101340
LMArena Creative Writing15071297
LMArena Multi-Turn14921331
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2162—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Qwen3 32B?

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 32B costs 16× 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 Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.

Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 37.7 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 Qwen3 32B share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper