# Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6.1 Sol

> Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 65.6 on the Noometry Index. GPT-6.1 Sol costs 5.0× 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-gpt-6-1-sol
- 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 7 categories and GPT-6.1 Sol in 3 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 79.2 to 63.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Mystery Game Puzzles: 58% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 80% for GPT-6.1 Sol.
- GPT-6.1 Sol is cheaper at $2 / $10 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
- GPT-6.1 Sol accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Fable 5.1 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 65.6 |
| Rank | 2 | 6 |
| Context | 1M | 1.05M |
| Input $/M | $10 | $2 |
| Output $/M | $50 | $10 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Claude Fable 5.1: 74.7 (#1)
- GPT-6.1 Sol: 63.2 (#8)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | 50.2% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | 1755 |
| SciCode | 63.1% | 55.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | 1487 |
| DeepSWE | — | 75.2% |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| GSO | 88.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | — |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5)
- GPT-6.1 Sol: 39.6 (#26)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 68.6% | 60% |
| GDP.pdf | 29.6% | 32% |
| Remote Labor Index | 17.9% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,422 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7)
- GPT-6.1 Sol: 81.9 (#2)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | 94.2% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | 95.5% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | 98.5% |
| CritPt | 31.1% | 31.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | 61% |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | 54.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1466 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | 80% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | 166.09 |
| DTBench | 97.6% | — |
| LMCA | 65.5% | — |

## Math

- Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4)
- GPT-6.1 Sol: 93.7 (#1)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | 93.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | 100% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 100% |
| ProofBench | 100% | 99% |
| LMArena Math | 1525 | 1464 |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6)
- GPT-6.1 Sol: 71.8 (#4)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | 73.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | 1502 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 95.4% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4)
- GPT-6.1 Sol: 52.7 (#5)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1318 | 1288 |
| Furniture Assembly | 70% | 80% |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 41.9% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1513 | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3)
- GPT-6.1 Sol: 54.3 (#46)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1438 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1586 | 1477 |
| LMArena Russian | 1521 | 1455 |
| LMArena French | 1525 | — |
| LMArena German | 1500 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1543 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1534 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1516 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6)
- GPT-6.1 Sol: 77.0 (#29)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1468 |

## Long Context

- Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20)
- GPT-6.1 Sol: 44.9 (#54)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | 1465 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2)
- GPT-6.1 Sol: 63.6 (#63)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1510 | 1447 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | 1432 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | 1449 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than GPT-6.1 Sol?

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 65.6 on the Noometry Index. GPT-6.1 Sol costs 5.0× 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 GPT-6.1 Sol?

GPT-6.1 Sol is cheaper. It lists at $2 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 GPT-6.1 Sol better for coding?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 63.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-6.1 Sol does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and GPT-6.1 Sol share?

32 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and GPT-6.1 Sol has 34.