Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Wins 4 of 5 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Long documents
Wins 0 of 5 areas
—
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger all-rounder.Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is cheaper.
Scores updated · 16 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.
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking30Claude Fable 5.13 of 4 tests · 1 tie
- CodingWriting and fixing software20Claude Fable 5.12 of 2 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own21Claude Fable 5.12 of 3 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.
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B costs 87% 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
- Complex command-line tasks across many fieldsTerminal-Bench 4.0+40.9points ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+35.9points ahead
- Common-sense trick questionsSimpleBench+24.1points ahead
Where Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+33.4points ahead
- Customer-service tasks in a simulated bankτ-Bench V3 · Banking+1.9points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 16 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 9.491.482+9.4
- SciCodeClaude Fable 5.1 by 963.154.1+9
AgentsClaude Fable 5.1
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Claude Fable 5.1 by 40.95211.1+40.9
- GDPValClaude Fable 5.1 by 7.362.955.6+7.3
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingQwen3.8 2.4T A95B by 1.947.249.1+1.9
ReasoningClaude Fable 5.1
- SimpleBenchClaude Fable 5.1 by 24.186.662.5+24.1
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Fable 5.1 by 16.759.142.4+16.7
- CritPtClaude Fable 5.1 by 9.729.720+9.7
- GPQA Diamondtie93.793.5tie
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Fable 5.1 by 35.967.231.3+35.9
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationQwen3.8 2.4T A95B by 33.427.460.8+33.4
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 39.243.54.3+39.2
- AA IntelligenceClaude Fable 5.1 by 13.553.439.9+13.5
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Fable 5.1 by 9.781.671.9+9.7
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Fable 5.1 by 7.65850.4+7.6
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B?
Claude Fable 5.1 wins four of the five areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning and long documents. Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B wins none, but costs 87% less. 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; Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Fable 5.1 costs $10.00 per million input tokens and $50.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B costs $2.00 and $6.00. That makes Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B about 87% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 16 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 12 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.