# Claude Fable 5 vs o1

> Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.8 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-fable-5-vs-o1
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 30

## Summary

- They share 30 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5 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 leads 88.5 to 36.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 87% for Claude Fable 5 and 14.7% for o1.
- Claude Fable 5 is cheaper at $10 / $50 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $60 for o1.
- Claude Fable 5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Fable 5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 66.8 | 40.9 |
| Rank | 5 | 143 |
| Context | 1M | 200K |
| Input $/M | $10 | $15 |
| Output $/M | $50 | $60 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Claude Fable 5: 70.6 (#4)
- o1: 46.1 (#70)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 91.9% | 47.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1519 | 1367 |
| DeepSWE | 69.9% | — |
| FrontierCode | 53.5% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 61.7% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1625 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 47% | — |
| SciCode | 61% | — |
| GSO | 78.4% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 69.7% |
| MirrorCode | 63.9% | — |
| CadEval | — | 56% |
| ALE-Bench | 2,041 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 89% |
| MBPP+ | — | 80.2% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Fable 5: 54.0 (#2)
- o1: 24.6 (#117)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 63.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 16.1% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 39.7% | — |
| Cybench | — | 10% |
| PostTrainBench | 41.8% | — |
| GBAEval | 74.5% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 30% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1230 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 51.1% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,680 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Fable 5: 76.8 (#6)
- o1: 27.9 (#111)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 81.9% | 41.7% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98.5% | 30.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 41% | 15% |
| EnigmaEval | 39.3% | 5.7% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1508 | 1371 |
| DTBench | 98.4% | 74.7% |
| LMCA | 61.1% | 22.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.06 | 141.91 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 89.2% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 91.4% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.7% | — |
| CritPt | 28.6% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 39.5% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 91.6% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 52% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65.5% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 95% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.13 | — |
| LiveBench | — | 75.7% |

## Math

- Claude Fable 5: 88.5 (#5)
- o1: 36.1 (#175)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 87% | 14.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 73.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1519 | 1388 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 90.2% | — |
| ProofBench | 95% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 80.3% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 94.7% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 9.3% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Fable 5: 62.2 (#25)
- o1: 41.5 (#110)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 85.9% | 76.8% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.7% | 41.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1534 | 1361 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | — | 8% |
| Confabulations | — | 11.7% |

## Multimodal

- Claude Fable 5: 45.3 (#17)
- o1: 34.2 (#93)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1324 | 1168 |
| GeoBench | — | 80% |
| VPCT | — | 37% |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 38.6% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 35.8% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1496 | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | — | 41.4% |

## Multilingual

- Claude Fable 5: 57.3 (#9)
- o1: 48.6 (#142)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1481 | 1358 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1543 | 1394 |
| LMArena French | 1505 | 1344 |
| LMArena German | 1486 | 1337 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1506 | 1346 |
| LMArena Korean | 1488 | 1396 |
| LMArena Russian | 1504 | 1356 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1498 | 1345 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Fable 5: 78.6 (#8)
- o1: 74.8 (#86)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1502 | 1367 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.5% |

## Long Context

- Claude Fable 5: 46.3 (#23)
- o1: 50.3 (#9)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1509 | 1378 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Fable 5: 75.9 (#5)
- o1: 55.6 (#144)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1491 | 1366 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1494 | 1348 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1504 | 1369 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 70.2% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1943 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1340 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 65.4% |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Fable 5 better than o1?

Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.8 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5 or o1?

Claude Fable 5 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 or o1 better for coding?

Claude Fable 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 70.6 versus 46.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Fable 5 does, with 1M tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5 and o1 share?

30 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5 has 62 scored results on Noometry and o1 has 52.