Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 51.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Max Preview costs 6.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 24 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 24 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3.6 Max Preview 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 54.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Mystery Game Puzzles: 58% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 19% for Qwen3.6 Max Preview.
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview is cheaper at $1.30 / $7.80 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
- Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 51.5 |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2026-04-20 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 262K |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | $1.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | $7.80 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 29 |
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), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 48.7 (#54)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | 1482 |
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | 1471 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 76.7% |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| SciCode | 63.1% | — |
| GSO | 88.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | — |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,422 | 4,254 |
| APEX-Agents | 68.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 17.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 29.6% | — |
Reasoning Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 41.7 (#53)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | 74.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | 20% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1457 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | 19% |
| DTBench | 97.6% | 87.2% |
| LMCA | 65.5% | 42.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | 149.24 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| SimpleBench | — | 63% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.1% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.1 (#46)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 91.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1525 | 1465 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 23.1% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 4.2% |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 57.6 (#39)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | 52% |
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | 1478 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 87.4% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1318 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 41.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 70% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1513 | — |
Multilingual Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.2 (#48)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1437 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1586 | 1487 |
| LMArena French | 1525 | 1449 |
| LMArena Russian | 1521 | 1445 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1516 | 1454 |
| LMArena German | 1500 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1543 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1534 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 75.7 (#55)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1438 |
Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 44.6 (#61)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | 1457 |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 63.8 (#60)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1510 | 1447 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | 1435 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | 1456 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 51.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Max Preview costs 6.8× 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 Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is cheaper. It lists at $1.30 per million input tokens and $7.80 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen3.6 Max Preview better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 48.7 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Fable 5.1 does, with 1M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen3.6 Max Preview share?
24 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Max Preview has 29.