Claude Fable 5.1 vs Ling 3.0 Tiny
Wins 4 of 5 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Long documents
Wins 0 of 5 areas
—
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger all-rounder.
Scores updated · 15 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the five areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own30Claude Fable 5.13 of 3 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking30Claude Fable 5.13 of 3 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software20Claude Fable 5.12 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Fable 5.11 of 1 test
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
Long documents rests on a single test.
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.
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
- Command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench 2.1+63.7points ahead
- Real work tasks from 44 professionsGDPVal+59.7points ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+58.7points ahead
Where Ling 3.0 Tiny pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+42.1points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 15 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingClaude Fable 5.1
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Claude Fable 5.1 by 63.791.427.7+63.7
- SciCodeClaude Fable 5.1 by 38.963.124.2+38.9
AgentsClaude Fable 5.1
- GDPValClaude Fable 5.1 by 59.762.93.2+59.7
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Claude Fable 5.1 by 52520+52
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingClaude Fable 5.1 by 26.447.220.8+26.4
ReasoningClaude Fable 5.1
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Fable 5.1 by 49.859.19.3+49.8
- CritPtClaude Fable 5.1 by 29.729.70+29.7
- GPQA DiamondClaude Fable 5.1 by 20.393.773.4+20.3
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Fable 5.1 by 58.767.28.5+58.7
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationLing 3.0 Tiny by 42.127.469.5+42.1
Other results4 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.
- AA-OmniscienceClaude Fable 5.1 by 62.843.5-19.4+62.8
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Fable 5.1 by 55.181.626.5+55.1
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Fable 5.1 by 50.9587.1+50.9
- AA IntelligenceClaude Fable 5.1 by 42.353.411.1+42.3
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or Ling 3.0 Tiny?
Claude Fable 5.1 wins four of the five areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning and long documents. Ling 3.0 Tiny wins none. They are level on facts.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; Ling 3.0 Tiny wins none.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 15 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 11 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 4 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.