Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 45.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Plus costs 29× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 29 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 29 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 10 categories and Qwen3.7 Plus in 0 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 89.5 to 49.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 90.2% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 34.4% for Qwen3.7 Plus.
- Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $1.60 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.7 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 68.5 | 45.0 |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2026-06-02 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | $1.60 |
| Results tracked | 50 | 32 |
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: 70.5 (#2), Qwen3.7 Plus: 36.1 (#200)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | 10.2% |
| SciCode | 63.1% | 45.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1523 | 1473 |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1753 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | — |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 50.8 (#5), Qwen3.7 Plus: 21.2 (#130)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 68.6% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | — | 2.8% |
| 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 (#5), Qwen3.7 Plus: 38.4 (#54)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | 74.8% |
| CritPt | 31.1% | 9.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | 24% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1460 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | 17% |
| DTBench | 97.6% | 84% |
| LMCA | 65.5% | 37.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 165 | 147.39 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 89.5 (#3), Qwen3.7 Plus: 49.3 (#47)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | 34.4% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 93.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1519 | 1467 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 69.3 (#5), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.9 (#46)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1528 | 1467 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 87.9% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |
Multimodal Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 54.1 (#4), Qwen3.7 Plus: 41.2 (#30)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1319 | 1281 |
| LMArena Document | 1513 | 1444 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 41.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 70% | — |
Multilingual Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 59.5 (#2), Qwen3.7 Plus: 55.0 (#36)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1509 | 1445 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1589 | 1510 |
| LMArena French | 1532 | 1471 |
| LMArena German | 1495 | 1471 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1565 | 1411 |
| LMArena Russian | 1525 | 1457 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1503 | 1453 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1416 |
Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.3 (#6), Qwen3.7 Plus: 75.9 (#49)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1515 | 1439 |
Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 46.8 (#19), Qwen3.7 Plus: 44.5 (#61)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1524 | 1454 |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.3 (#1), Qwen3.7 Plus: 64.5 (#54)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1511 | 1454 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | 1439 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | 1459 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Qwen3.7 Plus?
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 45.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Plus costs 29× 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 Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $1.60 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen3.7 Plus better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 70.5 versus 36.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen3.7 Plus share?
29 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 50 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Plus has 32.