Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5 vs DeepSeek-R1

Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.8 to 42.3 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-R1 costs 22× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 29 shared benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5 Anthropic

66.8

Rank #5 Confirmed

DeepSeek-R1 DeepSeek

42.3

Rank #115 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 29 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5 scores higher in 9 categories and DeepSeek-R1 in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Fable 5 leads 76.8 to 18.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-2: 89.2% for Claude Fable 5 and 1.3% for DeepSeek-R1.
  • DeepSeek-R1 is cheaper at $0.50 / $2.15 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.
  • Claude Fable 5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 164K.

Side by side

Claude Fable 5DeepSeek-R1
ProviderAnthropicDeepSeek
Noometry Index66.842.3
Released2026-06-072025-01-20
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1M164K
Max output128K64K
Input $ / M tokens$10$0.50
Output $ / M tokens$50$2.15
Results tracked6252

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 70.6 (#4), DeepSeek-R1: 46.3 (#68)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5DeepSeek-R1
SciCode61%35.7%
WeirdML91.9%41.6%
LMArena Coding15191427
ALE-Bench2,041804.12
DeepSWE69.9%—
FrontierCode53.5%—
Aider Polyglot—71.4%
LMArena WebDev1625—
FrontierSWE47%—
GSO78.4%—
LiveBench Coding—66.7%
MirrorCode63.9%—
AlgoTune—1.7

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 54.0 (#2), DeepSeek-R1: 30.7 (#75)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5DeepSeek-R1
APEX-Agents63.6%—
Remote Labor Index16.1%—
τ²-bench Banking39.7%—
DeepResearch Bench—35.1%
PostTrainBench41.8%—
BALROG—34.9%
GBAEval74.5%—
GDP.pdf30%—
LMArena Search1230—
METR Time Horizons—53.8%
Vending-Bench 25,680—

Reasoning Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 76.8 (#6), DeepSeek-R1: 18.6 (#278)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5DeepSeek-R1
ARC-AGI-289.2%1.3%
SimpleBench81.9%40.8%
Kagi LLM Benchmark91.4%69.4%
ARC-AGI-198.5%21.2%
CritPt28.6%1.1%
LMArena Hard Prompts15081416
Epoch Capabilities Index162.06141.29
NYT Connections (extended)92.7%—
Chess Puzzles41%—
EnigmaEval39.3%—
EBR-Bench39.5%—
LiveBench Reasoning—83.2%
Mystery Game Puzzles52%—
DTBench98.4%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—69.8%
LMCA61.1%—
Surface Evolver Bench95%—
Bench to the Future 30.13—
ForecastBench—60
LiveBench—71.6%

Math Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 88.5 (#5), DeepSeek-R1: 43.8 (#79)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5DeepSeek-R1
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%66.4%
LMArena Math15191400
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)87%—
FrontierMath Tier 490.2%—
ProofBench95%—
Omni-MATH—42.4%
LiveBench Math—80.7%
MATH Level 5—96.6%
FrontierMath Erdős0%—

Knowledge Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 62.2 (#25), DeepSeek-R1: 44.5 (#87)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5DeepSeek-R1
GPQA Diamond85.9%76.3%
LMArena Expert15341394
SimpleQA Verified70.7%—
MMLU-Pro—79.3%
Confabulations—12.7%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—11.3%
GPQA (HELM)—66.6%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Fable 5: 45.3 (#17), DeepSeek-R1: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5DeepSeek-R1
LMArena Vision1324—
Blueprint-Bench 238.6%—
Furniture Assembly35.8%—
LMArena Document1496—

Multilingual Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 57.3 (#9), DeepSeek-R1: 52.4 (#85)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5DeepSeek-R1
LMArena Non-English14811412
LMArena Chinese15431442
LMArena French15051417
LMArena German14861404
LMArena Japanese15061391
LMArena Korean14881360
LMArena Russian15041423
LMArena Spanish14981411

Instruction Following Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 78.6 (#8), DeepSeek-R1: 72.0 (#143)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5DeepSeek-R1
LMArena Instruction Following15021382
LiveBench Instruction Following—80.5%
IFEval—78.4%

Long Context Too close to call

Claude Fable 5: 46.3 (#23), DeepSeek-R1: 45.4 (#36)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5DeepSeek-R1
LMArena Longer Query15091391
Fiction.LiveBench—75%

Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 75.9 (#5), DeepSeek-R1: 61.4 (#88)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5DeepSeek-R1
LMArena Text14911428
LMArena Creative Writing14941405
EQ-Bench Creative Writing19431500
LMArena Multi-Turn15041405
Short-Story Creative Writing—83%
WildBench—82.8%
EQ-Bench 41340—
LiveBench Language—48.5%

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Fable 5 better than DeepSeek-R1?

Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.8 to 42.3 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-R1 costs 22× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5 or DeepSeek-R1?

DeepSeek-R1 is cheaper. It lists at $0.50 per million input tokens and $2.15 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5 lists at $10 and $50.

Is Claude Fable 5 or DeepSeek-R1 better for coding?

Claude Fable 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 70.6 versus 46.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Fable 5 does, with 1M tokens against 164K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5 and DeepSeek-R1 share?

29 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5 has 62 scored results on Noometry and DeepSeek-R1 has 52.

Related comparisons

Go deeper