Reasoning
198-question Diamond subset; independent AA evaluation
- 01
- 02
- 03
- 03
- 03
- 06
Claude Fable 5.1
Across the task benchmarks we track, Claude Fable 5.1’s strongest relative results are in knowledge work, reasoning, and terminal use. On GDPval-AA v2.1, it scores 1,763 Elo, ranking #4 among 38 models with reported results in our dataset.
Updated: Data as of:
🥇
Strongest results
| Benchmark | Measures | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Agent Index ↗v1.2 Preview | Overall agent capability | 85.7 / 100#4 of 26 |
| LiveBench: Agentic ↗2.0 / 2026-10-25 | Long-running agentic work | 77.9%#1 of 25 |
| LiveBench: Coding ↗2.0 / 2026-10-25 | Coding with LiveBench | 97.7%#1 of 25 |
| Humanity's Last Exam ↗Stable HLE — text-only subset | Expert reasoning | 59.1%#2 of 68 |
Model details
| Model | Claude Fable 5.1 |
|---|---|
| Agent Index v1.2 | 85.7 / 100 · Rank 4 · Preview |
| Creator | Anthropic (opens in a new tab) |
| Availability | Proprietary |
| Context size | 1,000,000 tokens (opens in a new tab) |
| Max output | 128,000 tokens (opens in a new tab) |
| Knowledge cutoff | Not reported |
| License | Not reported |
Pricing and performance
Per provider and reported configuration. Prices are USD per 1M tokens.
| Provider / configuration | Contexttokens | InputUSD / 1M tokens | OutputUSD / 1M tokens | LatencyTTFT · seconds | Speedtokens / sec |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Fable 5.1 (max with fallback) | 1,000,000 | $10.00 (opens in a new tab) | $50.00 (opens in a new tab) | 256.491 (opens in a new tab) | 69.417 (opens in a new tab) |
Benchmark performance
Claude Fable 5.1 in color, alongside leading models. Latest stored reports, best effort per report date.
GPQA Diamond ↗
Coding
OpenAI Astra launch benchmark table
- 01
- 02
- 03
- 04
- 05
- 06
Terminal Use
Official 4.0 board; native agent harnesses
- 01
- 02
- 03
- 03
- 05
Work Automations
Private held-out set; API mode; 50 steps; strict pass/fail
- 01
- 02
- 03
- 04
- 05
- 10
Knowledge Work
220 tasks; Stirrup agent; pairwise Elo
- 01
- 02
- 03
- 04
- 05
Reported benchmarks
All published results in our dataset, with versions, evaluation settings, and sources.
| Benchmark | Score | Evaluation setup | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-Briefcase1.1 / combined EloCombined Elo · Higher is better | 1,670 Elo | selection: publisher default displayed configuration · Claude Fable 5.1 (max with fallback) | Artificial Analysis (opens in a new tab)independent |
| AutomationBench1.0.6 / Zapier held-out private setStrict task completion · Higher is better | 21.31% | Claude Fable 5.1 (XHigh); private held-out 657 tasks; API mode; 50-step cap; strict completion | Zapier ↗ (opens in a new tab)benchmark publisher |
| AutomationBench1.0.6 / Zapier held-out private setStrict task completion · Higher is better | 22.37% | Claude Fable 5.1 (Max); private held-out 657 tasks; API mode; 50-step cap; strict completion | Zapier ↗ (opens in a new tab)benchmark publisher |
| AutomationBench1.0.6 / Zapier held-out private setStrict task completion · Higher is better | 31.4% | Claude Fable 5.1 (with Opus 5 Fallback); private held-out 657 tasks; API mode; 50-step cap; strict completion | Zapier ↗ (opens in a new tab)benchmark publisher |
| AutomationBench-AA1.0.6 / AA private 657Objectives completed without guardrail violations · Higher is better | 59.4% | reported precision decimals: 1 · result quality: reported · Claude Fable 5.1 (max with fallback); private held-out 657 tasks; 50 turns; objective completion with zero credit for any guardrail violation. · source model href: /models/claude-fable-5-1 · task count: 657 · Tools enabled · turn cap: 50 | Artificial Analysis (opens in a new tab)independent |
| DeepSWEv1.1 / OpenAI Astra launch comparisonPass@1 · Higher is better | 67.4% | OpenAI GPT-6 Astra launch comparison; best reported reasoning setting; see source evaluation footnotes | OpenAI ↗ (opens in a new tab)provider reported |
| GDP.pdf100 tasks / All-pass / five attemptsAccuracy · Higher is better | 26.2% | selection: publisher default displayed configuration · Claude Fable 5.1 (max with fallback) | Artificial Analysis (opens in a new tab)independent |
| GDPval-AA2.1Elo · Higher is better | 1,644.08 Elo | Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback); 220 tasks; Stirrup agent; pairwise Elo | Artificial Analysis (opens in a new tab)independent |
| GDPval-AA2.1Elo · Higher is better | 1,740.22 Elo | Claude Fable 5.1 (Xhigh, Default Fallback); 220 tasks; Stirrup agent; pairwise Elo | Artificial Analysis (opens in a new tab)independent |
| GDPval-AA2.1Elo · Higher is better | 1,763.29 Elo | Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback); 220 tasks; Stirrup agent; pairwise Elo | Artificial Analysis (opens in a new tab)independent |
| GDPval-AA2.1Elo · Higher is better | 1,554.23 Elo | Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium, Default Fallback); 220 tasks; Stirrup agent; pairwise Elo | Artificial Analysis (opens in a new tab)independent |
| GDPval-AA2.1Elo · Higher is better | 1,476.7 Elo | Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback); 220 tasks; Stirrup agent; pairwise Elo | Artificial Analysis (opens in a new tab)independent |
| GPQADiamond / Artificial AnalysisAccuracy · Higher is better | 90.606% | Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback); 198-question Diamond subset; independent AA evaluation | Artificial Analysis (opens in a new tab)independent |
| GPQADiamond / Artificial AnalysisAccuracy · Higher is better | 93.434% | Claude Fable 5.1 (Xhigh, Default Fallback); 198-question Diamond subset; independent AA evaluation | Artificial Analysis (opens in a new tab)independent |
| GPQADiamond / Artificial AnalysisAccuracy · Higher is better | 93.737% | Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback); 198-question Diamond subset; independent AA evaluation | Artificial Analysis (opens in a new tab)independent |
| GPQADiamond / Artificial AnalysisAccuracy · Higher is better | 88.586% | Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium, Default Fallback); 198-question Diamond subset; independent AA evaluation | Artificial Analysis (opens in a new tab)independent |
| GPQADiamond / Artificial AnalysisAccuracy · Higher is better | 88.081% | Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback); 198-question Diamond subset; independent AA evaluation | Artificial Analysis (opens in a new tab)independent |
| HLE-Diamond1,000 questions / no toolsAccuracy · Higher is better | 60.1% | selection: best reported configuration per release · Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback) · No tools | Artificial Analysis (opens in a new tab)independent |
| Humanity's Last ExamStable HLE — full setAccuracy · Higher is better | 65.6% | Provider benchmark table; tools enabled. Cross-model settings may differ. · subset: full · Tools enabled | Anthropic ↗ (opens in a new tab)provider reported · 2026-09-22 |
| Humanity's Last ExamStable HLE — full setAccuracy · Higher is better | 65% | subset: full · Tools enabled | Anthropic ↗ (opens in a new tab)provider reported |
| Humanity's Last ExamStable HLE — full setAccuracy · Higher is better | 60.9% | subset: full · No tools | Anthropic ↗ (opens in a new tab)provider reported |
| Humanity's Last ExamStable HLE — text-only subsetAccuracy · Higher is better | 59.1% | question count: 2158 · reported precision decimals: 1 · Claude Fable 5.1 (max with fallback); original HLE; 2,158 text-only questions; no tools; pass@1; chart labels rounded to one decimal. · source model href: /models/claude-fable-5-1 · subset: text · No tools | Artificial Analysis (opens in a new tab)independent |
| LiveBench: Agentic2.0 / 2026-10-25Accuracy · Higher is better | 77.9% | release: 2026-10-25 · Highest supported effort unless publisher reports an exception; single run · suite: agentic | LiveBench ↗ (opens in a new tab)benchmark publisher · 2026-10-25 |
| LiveBench: Browser Use2.0 / 2026-10-25Accuracy · Higher is better | 89.8% | release: 2026-10-25 · Highest supported effort unless publisher reports an exception; single run · suite: browser-use | LiveBench ↗ (opens in a new tab)benchmark publisher · 2026-10-25 |
| LiveBench: Coding2.0 / 2026-10-25Accuracy · Higher is better | 97.7% | release: 2026-10-25 · Highest supported effort unless publisher reports an exception; single run · suite: coding | LiveBench ↗ (opens in a new tab)benchmark publisher · 2026-10-25 |
| LiveBench: Data Analysis2.0 / 2026-10-25Accuracy · Higher is better | 80.3% | release: 2026-10-25 · Highest supported effort unless publisher reports an exception; single run · suite: data-analysis | LiveBench ↗ (opens in a new tab)benchmark publisher · 2026-10-25 |
| LiveBench: Design2.0 / 2026-10-25Accuracy · Higher is better | 83.4% | release: 2026-10-25 · Highest supported effort unless publisher reports an exception; single run · suite: design | LiveBench ↗ (opens in a new tab)benchmark publisher · 2026-10-25 |
| LiveBench: Reasoning2.0 / 2026-10-25Accuracy · Higher is better | 91.7% | release: 2026-10-25 · Highest supported effort unless publisher reports an exception; single run · suite: reasoning | LiveBench ↗ (opens in a new tab)benchmark publisher · 2026-10-25 |
| LiveBench: Research2.0 / 2026-10-25Accuracy · Higher is better | 82% | release: 2026-10-25 · Highest supported effort unless publisher reports an exception; single run · suite: research | LiveBench ↗ (opens in a new tab)benchmark publisher · 2026-10-25 |
| Terminal-Bench4.0Task success · Higher is better | 57.9% | Claude Code; effort=max; 57.9% ± 3.8% | Terminal-Bench ↗ (opens in a new tab)benchmark publisher |
| Terminal-Bench4.0Task success · Higher is better | 57.9% | Claude Code; max; ±3.8 percentage points | Terminal-Bench ↗ (opens in a new tab)benchmark publisher |
| Terminal-Bench4.0 / mini-swe-agentTask success · Higher is better | 55.051% | harness: mini-swe-agent · repeats: 3 · selection: best reported configuration per release · Claude Fable 5.1 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) | Artificial Analysis (opens in a new tab)independent |