Claude Fable 5.1 vs DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
Wins 8 of 8 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Images and charts · Math · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 0 of 8 areas
—
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger all-rounder.DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is cheaper.
Scores updated · 44 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the eight areas we test. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking60Claude Fable 5.16 of 6 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own30Claude Fable 5.13 of 3 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up30Claude Fable 5.13 of 3 tests
- MathCompetition and research-level math30Claude Fable 5.13 of 3 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software31Claude Fable 5.13 of 5 tests · 1 tie
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video10Claude Fable 5.11 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Fable 5.11 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10Claude Fable 5.11 of 1 test
Images and charts, long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash costs 98% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Claude Fable 5.1 pulls ahead
- Extremely hard research-level math problemsFrontierMath Tier 4+41.5points ahead
- Short factual questions, answered correctlySimpleQA Verified+27.9points ahead
- Complex command-line tasks across many fieldsTerminal-Bench 4.0+25.2points ahead
Where DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash pulls ahead
- Fixes real GitHub issues, working as an agentLiveBench · Agentic Coding+11.2points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 44 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingClaude Fable 5.1
- LMArena · WebDevClaude Fable 5.1 by 127 rating points17461619+127 rating
- LiveBench · Agentic CodingDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash by 11.266.177.3+11.2
- SciCodeClaude Fable 5.1 by 11.263.151.9+11.2
- LiveBench · CodingClaude Fable 5.1 by 6.486.480+6.4
- Terminal-Bench 2.1tie91.490.6tie
AgentsClaude Fable 5.1
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Claude Fable 5.1 by 25.25226.8+25.2
- GDPValClaude Fable 5.1 by 7.762.755+7.7
- AA IT-Bench SREClaude Fable 5.1 by 2.649.546.9+2.6
ReasoningClaude Fable 5.1
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Fable 5.1 by 19.959.139.2+19.9
- SimpleBenchClaude Fable 5.1 by 19.986.666.7+19.9
- CritPtClaude Fable 5.1 by 15.429.714.3+15.4
- ARC-AGI-2Claude Fable 5.1 by 11.99078.1+11.9
- LiveBench · ReasoningClaude Fable 5.1 by 591.786.7+5
- GPQA DiamondClaude Fable 5.1 by 2.893.790.9+2.8
FactsClaude Fable 5.1
- SimpleQA VerifiedClaude Fable 5.1 by 27.970.842.9+27.9
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude Fable 5.1 by 23.927.43.5+23.9
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Fable 5.1 by 20.867.246.4+20.8
Images and chartsClaude Fable 5.1
- LMArena · VisionClaude Fable 5.1 by 41 rating points13191278+41 rating
MathClaude Fable 5.1
- FrontierMath Tier 4Claude Fable 5.1 by 41.587.846.3+41.5
- FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)Claude Fable 5.1 by 1990.271.2+19
- LiveBench · MathematicsClaude Fable 5.1 by 3.79793.3+3.7
Following instructionsClaude Fable 5.1
- LiveBench · Instruction FollowingClaude Fable 5.1 by 37370+3
Other results21 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- GDP (Surge AI)Claude Fable 5.1 by 67.985.117.2+67.9
- Program BenchClaude Fable 5.1 by 67.387.620.3+67.3
- AA-OmniscienceClaude Fable 5.1 by 48.843.5-5.3+48.8
- Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1Claude Fable 5.1 by 36.952.615.7+36.9
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Claude Fable 5.1 by 24.655.831.2+24.6
- OSWorld 2.0Claude Fable 5.1 by 23.677.954.3+23.6
- BenchCAD w/o toolsClaude Fable 5.1 by 19.460.641.2+19.4
- PostTrain Bench v1.2Claude Fable 5.1 by 14.144.630.5+14.1
- AA IntelligenceClaude Fable 5.1 by 13.953.439.5+13.9
- BenchCAD w/ toolsClaude Fable 5.1 by 1192.681.6+11
- livebench_languageClaude Fable 5.1 by 8.389.581.2+8.3
- ZeroBench_main w/ python (pass@5)Claude Fable 5.1 by 85951+8
- charxiv_rq_with_pythonClaude Fable 5.1 by 7.192.785.6+7.1
- DeepSWE 1.1DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash by 6.867.474.2+6.8
- mmmu_pro_with_pythonClaude Fable 5.1 by 5.988.482.5+5.9
- SWE Marathon v1.1Claude Fable 5.1 by 5.645.640+5.6
- ChartoGraphy w/ pythonClaude Fable 5.1 by 5.488.483+5.4
- ARC-AGI-1Claude Fable 5.1 by 497.593.5+4
- baby_vision_with_pythonClaude Fable 5.1 by 2.695.192.5+2.6
- HLE (with tools)Claude Fable 5.1 by 1.765.663.9+1.7
- livebench_data_analysisClaude Fable 5.1 by 180.379.3+1
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash?
Claude Fable 5.1 wins all eight areas we test: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, images and charts, math, long documents and following instructions. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash wins none, but costs 98% less.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1. It wins 3 of the 5 coding tests both models report; DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash wins 1, and 1 is a tie.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Fable 5.1 costs $10.00 per million input tokens and $50.00 per million output tokens; DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash costs $0.30 and $1.20. That makes DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash about 98% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 44 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 23 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 21 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.