# Claude Fable 5.1 vs Command A

> Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index. Command A costs 4.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-fable-5-1-vs-command-a
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 19

## Summary

- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 9 categories and Command A 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 17.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 65.5% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 10.3% for Command A.
- Command A is cheaper at $2.50 / $10 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
- Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 256K.
- Command A has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Fable 5.1 | Command A |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Cohere |
| Noometry Index | 68.5 | 35.9 |
| Rank | 2 | 212 |
| Context | 1M | 256K |
| Input $/M | $10 | $2.50 |
| Output $/M | $50 | $10 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Fable 5.1: 70.5 (#2)
- Command A: 26.8 (#317)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Command A |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1523 | 1331 |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 12% |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1753 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| SciCode | 63.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | — |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Fable 5.1: 50.8 (#5)
- Command A: 35.7 (#36)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Command A |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 68.6% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 57.1% |
| Remote Labor Index | 17.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 29.6% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,422 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#5)
- Command A: 17.7 (#276)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Command A |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1326 |
| DTBench | 97.6% | 61.3% |
| LMCA | 65.5% | 10.3% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 28.8% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 165 | — |

## Math

- Claude Fable 5.1: 89.5 (#3)
- Command A: 33.5 (#172)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Command A |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1519 | 1300 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Fable 5.1: 69.3 (#5)
- Command A: 36.5 (#157)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Command A |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1528 | 1295 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 9.3% |

## Multimodal

- Claude Fable 5.1: 54.1 (#4)
- Command A: —

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Command A |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1319 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 41.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 70% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1513 | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Fable 5.1: 59.5 (#2)
- Command A: 45.5 (#166)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Command A |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1509 | 1313 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1589 | 1327 |
| LMArena French | 1532 | 1352 |
| LMArena German | 1495 | 1341 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1565 | 1283 |
| LMArena Russian | 1525 | 1314 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1503 | 1346 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1285 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Fable 5.1: 79.3 (#6)
- Command A: 69.3 (#172)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Command A |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1515 | 1309 |

## Long Context

- Claude Fable 5.1: 46.8 (#19)
- Command A: 40.6 (#147)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Command A |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1524 | 1334 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Fable 5.1: 79.3 (#1)
- Command A: 47.8 (#204)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Command A |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1511 | 1331 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | 1319 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | 1145 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | 1338 |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Command A?

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index. Command A costs 4.6× 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 Command A?

Command A is cheaper. It lists at $2.50 per million input tokens and $10 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.

### Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Command A better for coding?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 70.5 versus 26.8 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Fable 5.1 does, with 1M tokens against 256K.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Command A share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 50 scored results on Noometry and Command A has 24.