Claude Fable 5 is the stronger all-rounder.Ling-3.1-flash is cheaper.
Scores updated · 10 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 thinking20Claude Fable 52 of 2 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own10Claude Fable 51 of 2 tests · 1 tie
- CodingWriting and fixing software10Claude Fable 51 of 1 test
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts00Even0 each · 1 tie
Coding and long documents 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.
Ling-3.1-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 pulls ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+36.3points ahead
- Very hard expert questions across many subjectsHumanity's Last Exam+16.1points ahead
- Research-level physics problemsCritPt+10.6points ahead
Where Ling-3.1-flash pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+25.7points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 10 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
AgentsClaude Fable 5
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Claude Fable 5 by 9.142.433.3+9.1
- GDPValtie55.656.1tie
ReasoningClaude Fable 5
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Fable 5 by 16.155.539.4+16.1
- CritPtClaude Fable 5 by 10.628.618+10.6
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Fable 5 by 36.365.329.1+36.3
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationLing-3.1-flash by 25.736.462.1+25.7
Other results2 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 by 41.143.32.2+41.1
- AA IntelligenceClaude Fable 5 by 8.549.641.1+8.5
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Ling-3.1-flash?
Claude Fable 5 wins three of the five areas where both have results: coding, agents and reasoning. Ling-3.1-flash wins none, but costs 98% less. They are level on facts and long documents.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Fable 5. It wins the one coding test both models report.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Fable 5 costs $10.00 per million input tokens and $50.00 per million output tokens; Ling-3.1-flash costs $0.30 and $0.90. That makes Ling-3.1-flash about 98% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 10 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 8 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 2 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.