# Claude Fable 5.1 vs o1

> Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-fable-5-1-vs-o1
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 28

## Summary

- They share 28 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 9 categories and o1 in 1 category; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 89.6 to 36.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 90.2% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 14.7% for o1.
- Claude Fable 5.1 is cheaper at $10 / $50 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $60 for o1.
- Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Fable 5.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 40.9 |
| Rank | 2 | 143 |
| Context | 1M | 200K |
| Input $/M | $10 | $15 |
| Output $/M | $50 | $60 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Claude Fable 5.1: 74.7 (#1)
- o1: 46.1 (#70)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 92.9% | 47.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | 1367 |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 61.7% |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| SciCode | 63.1% | — |
| GSO | 88.2% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 69.7% |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
| CadEval | — | 56% |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 89% |
| MBPP+ | — | 80.2% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5)
- o1: 24.6 (#117)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 68.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 17.9% | — |
| Cybench | — | 10% |
| GDP.pdf | 29.6% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 51.1% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,422 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7)
- o1: 27.9 (#111)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | 30.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | 15% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1371 |
| DTBench | 97.6% | 74.7% |
| LMCA | 65.5% | 22.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | 141.91 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| SimpleBench | — | 41.7% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | — |
| CritPt | 31.1% | — |
| EnigmaEval | — | 5.7% |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 91.6% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65.5% |
| LiveBench | — | 75.7% |

## Math

- Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4)
- o1: 36.1 (#175)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | 14.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 73.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1525 | 1388 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 80.3% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 94.7% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 9.3% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6)
- o1: 41.5 (#110)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | 8% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | 41.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | 1361 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 76.8% |
| Confabulations | — | 11.7% |

## Multimodal

- Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4)
- o1: 34.2 (#93)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1318 | 1168 |
| GeoBench | — | 80% |
| VPCT | — | 37% |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 41.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 70% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1513 | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | — | 41.4% |

## Multilingual

- Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3)
- o1: 48.6 (#142)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1358 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1586 | 1394 |
| LMArena French | 1525 | 1344 |
| LMArena German | 1500 | 1337 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1543 | 1346 |
| LMArena Korean | 1534 | 1396 |
| LMArena Russian | 1521 | 1356 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1516 | 1345 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6)
- o1: 74.8 (#86)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1367 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.5% |

## Long Context

- Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20)
- o1: 50.3 (#9)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | 1378 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2)
- o1: 55.6 (#144)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1510 | 1366 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | 1348 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | 1369 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 70.2% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 65.4% |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than o1?

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or o1?

Claude Fable 5.1 is cheaper. It lists at $10 per million input tokens and $50 per million output tokens; o1 lists at $15 and $60.

### Is Claude Fable 5.1 or o1 better for coding?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 46.1 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 o1 share?

28 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and o1 has 52.