# Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM-5.1

> Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 47.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-5.1 costs 9.3× 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-glm-5-1
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 32

## Summary

- They share 32 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 9 categories and GLM-5.1 in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 89.6 to 49.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 100% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 22.2% for GLM-5.1.
- GLM-5.1 is cheaper at $1.40 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
- Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
- GLM-5.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Fable 5.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 47.8 |
| Rank | 2 | 59 |
| Context | 1M | 200K |
| Input $/M | $10 | $1.40 |
| Output $/M | $50 | $4.40 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Fable 5.1: 74.7 (#1)
- GLM-5.1: 48.7 (#55)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | 1508 |
| SciCode | 63.1% | 43.8% |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | 57.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | 1485 |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | 887.1 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 74.2% |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| GSO | 88.2% | — |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5)
- GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 68.6% | 40.9% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,422 | 5,634 |
| Remote Labor Index | 17.9% | — |
| ExploitBench | — | 18.1% |
| GBAEval | — | 0% |
| GDP.pdf | 29.6% | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7)
- GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | 77.7% |
| CritPt | 31.1% | 4.6% |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | 19% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1472 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | 149.84 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| SimpleBench | — | 55.1% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 69.8% |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
| DTBench | 97.6% | — |
| LMCA | 65.5% | — |

## Math

- Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4)
- GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | 36.8% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 93.3% |
| ProofBench | 100% | 22.2% |
| LMArena Math | 1525 | 1473 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 67.1% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 33.4% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 12.5% |

## Knowledge

- Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6)
- GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | 34% |
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | 1476 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 89.9% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4)
- GLM-5.1: —

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

## Multilingual

- Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3)
- GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1447 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1586 | 1515 |
| LMArena French | 1525 | 1474 |
| LMArena German | 1500 | 1465 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1543 | 1434 |
| LMArena Korean | 1534 | 1418 |
| LMArena Russian | 1521 | 1454 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1516 | 1469 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6)
- GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1451 |

## Long Context

- Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20)
- GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | 1466 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2)
- GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1510 | 1461 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | 1453 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | 1592 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | 1472 |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than GLM-5.1?

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 47.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-5.1 costs 9.3× 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 GLM-5.1?

GLM-5.1 is cheaper. It lists at $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.

### Is Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM-5.1 better for coding?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 48.7 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Fable 5.1 does, with 1M tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and GLM-5.1 share?

32 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.1 has 41.