Claude Fable 5.1 vs LongCat-2.0
Wins 5 of 5 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Long documents
Wins 0 of 5 areas
—
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger all-rounder.LongCat-2.0 is cheaper.
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
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up20Claude Fable 5.12 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Fable 5.11 of 1 test
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.
LongCat-2.0 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
- Real work tasks from 44 professionsGDPVal+44.2points ahead
- Command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench 2.1+41.2points ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+37.6points ahead
Where LongCat-2.0 pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
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 41.291.450.2+41.2
- SciCodeClaude Fable 5.1 by 26.863.136.3+26.8
AgentsClaude Fable 5.1
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Claude Fable 5.1 by 52520+52
- GDPValClaude Fable 5.1 by 44.262.818.6+44.2
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingClaude Fable 5.1 by 3447.213.2+34
ReasoningClaude Fable 5.1
- CritPtClaude Fable 5.1 by 27.129.72.6+27.1
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Fable 5.1 by 25.459.133.7+25.4
- GPQA DiamondClaude Fable 5.1 by 15.793.778+15.7
FactsClaude Fable 5.1
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Fable 5.1 by 37.667.229.6+37.6
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude Fable 5.1 by 2.827.424.6+2.8
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 66.943.5-23.4+66.9
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Fable 5.1 by 42.15815.9+42.1
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Fable 5.1 by 36.381.645.3+36.3
- AA IntelligenceClaude Fable 5.1 by 34.353.419.1+34.3
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or LongCat-2.0?
Claude Fable 5.1 wins all five areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, facts and long documents. LongCat-2.0 wins none, but costs 98% less.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; LongCat-2.0 wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Fable 5.1 costs $10.00 per million input tokens and $50.00 per million output tokens; LongCat-2.0 costs $0.30 and $1.20. That makes LongCat-2.0 about 98% cheaper for the same work.
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.