# Claude Fable 5.1 vs DeepSeek-V3.1

> Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 42.8 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-V3.1 costs 47× 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-deepseek-v3-1
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 22

## Summary

- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and DeepSeek-V3.1 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 38.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 92.9% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 38.4% for DeepSeek-V3.1.
- DeepSeek-V3.1 is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.95 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
- Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 164K.
- DeepSeek-V3.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Fable 5.1 | DeepSeek-V3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | DeepSeek |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 42.8 |
| Rank | 2 | 108 |
| Context | 1M | 164K |
| Input $/M | $10 | $0.25 |
| Output $/M | $50 | $0.95 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Fable 5.1: 74.7 (#1)
- DeepSeek-V3.1: 40.3 (#144)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | DeepSeek-V3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 92.9% | 38.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | 1417 |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| SciCode | 63.1% | — |
| GSO | 88.2% | — |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5)
- DeepSeek-V3.1: —

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | DeepSeek-V3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 68.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 17.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 29.6% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,422 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7)
- DeepSeek-V3.1: 27.9 (#110)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | DeepSeek-V3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1417 |
| DTBench | 97.6% | 82.7% |
| LMCA | 65.5% | 24.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | 139.92 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| SimpleBench | — | 40% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 53.2% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 58 |

## Math

- Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4)
- DeepSeek-V3.1: 38.9 (#122)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | DeepSeek-V3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1525 | 1420 |
| 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: 69.6 (#6)
- DeepSeek-V3.1: 43.7 (#90)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | DeepSeek-V3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | 1405 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.5% |

## Multimodal

- Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4)
- DeepSeek-V3.1: —

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | DeepSeek-V3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1318 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 41.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 70% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1513 | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3)
- DeepSeek-V3.1: 51.6 (#106)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | DeepSeek-V3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1400 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1586 | 1469 |
| LMArena French | 1525 | 1447 |
| LMArena German | 1500 | 1411 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1543 | 1378 |
| LMArena Korean | 1534 | 1337 |
| LMArena Russian | 1521 | 1405 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1516 | 1431 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6)
- DeepSeek-V3.1: 73.9 (#110)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | DeepSeek-V3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1400 |

## Long Context

- Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20)
- DeepSeek-V3.1: 36.3 (#232)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | DeepSeek-V3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | 1422 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 52.8% |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2)
- DeepSeek-V3.1: 60.3 (#98)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | DeepSeek-V3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1510 | 1420 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | 1401 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | 1436 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | 1408 |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than DeepSeek-V3.1?

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 42.8 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-V3.1 costs 47× 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 DeepSeek-V3.1?

DeepSeek-V3.1 is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.95 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.

### Is Claude Fable 5.1 or DeepSeek-V3.1 better for coding?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 40.3 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Fable 5.1 does, with 1M tokens against 164K.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and DeepSeek-V3.1 share?

22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and DeepSeek-V3.1 has 27.