Fable 5.1 benchmarked against 8 rivals across coding, 3D, SVG and data-viz
arena · x · 2026-09-03
Peter Gostev put Anthropic's Fable 5.1 head-to-head with Fable 5, Opus 5, GPT-5.6, Kimi K3, GLM 5.3, Qwen-3.8, Grok-4.6, and DeepSeek.
Tasks spanned coding, 3D, SVG, research, and data-viz, with per-generation costs ranging from cents to $65+, letting readers judge whether Fable 5.1's quality justifies its price.
More from Models
- Meta Muse Spark 1.3 early coding tests impress: near-frontier quality at a third of the price — DeryaTR_ · 2026-09-03
- Qwen3.8 Flash AP quants beat other high-quality quants with new KLD eval method — Dutchnamn · 2026-09-03
- GLM-OCR reads Nvidia's 61-page 10-Q at 2,086 tok/s for under 2 cents — spillai · 2026-09-03
- Alexandr Wang Touts Meta Muse Spark 1.3: 1 Minute vs Fable 5.1's 70 Minutes and $13 — alexandr_wang · 2026-09-03
- A Gemini Flash model reportedly tops the DeepSWE coding leaderboard — sunjiao123sun_ · 2026-09-03
- Hypothesis: the better LLMs get at coding, the worse their writing gets — kwangmoo_yi · 2026-09-03