Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs QwQ-32B
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 7 categories and QwQ-32B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 76.7 to 22.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 47% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 5% for QwQ-32B.
- QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 68.5 | 39.4 |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | — |
| Results tracked | 50 | 36 |
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), QwQ-32B: 34.9 (#220)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1523 | 1333 |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 20.9% |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1753 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| SciCode | 63.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.2% |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 50.8 (#5), QwQ-32B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 68.6% | — |
| 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), QwQ-32B: 22.9 (#171)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | 5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1326 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 165 | 137.6 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.1% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 83.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
| DTBench | 97.6% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65% |
| LMCA | 65.5% | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.3 |
| LiveBench | — | 72% |
Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 89.5 (#3), QwQ-32B: 36.2 (#123)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 59.2% |
| LMArena Math | 1519 | 1359 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.8% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 69.3 (#5), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#150)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1528 | 1323 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 65.3% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 54.1 (#4), QwQ-32B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1319 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 41.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 70% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1513 | — |
Multilingual Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 59.5 (#2), QwQ-32B: 45.0 (#171)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1509 | 1306 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1589 | 1378 |
| LMArena French | 1532 | 1337 |
| LMArena German | 1495 | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1565 | 1263 |
| LMArena Russian | 1525 | 1297 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1503 | 1353 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1278 |
Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.3 (#6), QwQ-32B: 72.8 (#131)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1515 | 1297 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.8% |
Long Context QwQ-32B leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 46.8 (#19), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1524 | 1308 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.3 (#1), QwQ-32B: 50.9 (#175)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1511 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | 1288 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | 1257 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | 1314 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than QwQ-32B?
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or QwQ-32B better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 70.5 versus 34.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and QwQ-32B share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 50 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.