New Sign up free, 10 calls on us. Up to $1, no card needed.

Claude Fable 5.1 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017)

Claude Fable 5.1 is served by invitation. Its figures below are the live rates, but calls need a workspace grant first; ask us for access before you build on this comparison.

vs

Which one, when

Both take text and image in, return text and share a 1,000,000-token context, so the split is price and output room: claude-fable-5-1 bills $10 input and $50 output per million, while deepseek-v4.1-flash-1017 charges $0.3 and $1.2, roughly 33x and 42x cheaper, with cache reads at $0.006 versus $0.25. Pick claude-fable-5-1 when you need structured output or batch requests, which deepseek-v4.1-flash-1017 does not list, or a stated knowledge cutoff (2026-06); pick deepseek-v4.1-flash-1017 for high-volume work or long single responses, since it allows 393216 output tokens against 128000.

Benchmarks

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017): the vendor has not published benchmark scores.

Above averageNo peer higherClaude Fable 5.119 / 213 / 21
Claude Fable 5.1 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) other models measured peer average ★ no peer scored higher
DeepSWE 1.1
67.4%
N/A
OSWorld 2.0 partial
80.7%
N/A
HealthBench Professional
58.1%
N/A
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1
52.6%
N/A
GPQA Diamond
93.7%
N/A
AutomationBench
31.4%
N/A
Chartography with tools
88.4%
N/A

Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai

Pricing

Claude Fable 5.1 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) Δ
Input / 1M tokens $10 $0.3 33×
Output / 1M tokens $50 $1.2 42×
Cache read / 1M tokens $0.25 $0.006 42×
Cache write 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) no separate charge -

Rates from the live catalogue at build time; each model page carries the current rate card.

Where they sit · input price per 1M tokens across all 79 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)

Capabilities

Claude Fable 5.1 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017)
Tool calling yes yes
Thinking control always on yes (vendor dial not published)
Structured output yes -
Prompt caching explicit (you mark the prefix) implicit (automatic)
Cache lifetime 5m default, 1h option no fixed TTL (evicted when unused)
Minimum cached prefix 1024 tokens not published

Specs

Claude Fable 5.1 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017)
Input modalities text image text image
Output modalities text text
Released 2026-09-01 2026-10-17
Knowledge cutoff 2026-06 -
Context window 1M 1M
Max output 128K 393K
Thinking parameter output_config.effort (thinking is adaptive-only and always on) -
Accepted values
effort
  • low
  • medium
  • high
  • xhigh
  • max
-
Default

thinking always on (adaptive)

effort
  • high
-

Specs are transcribed from each vendor’s documentation; a row a vendor does not publish is left out rather than inferred. Full sources: Claude Fable 5.1 · DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017)

One prompt, both models, measured through the gateway

PROMPT Explain to a CFO, in exactly three sentences, why our LLM bill doubled after we enabled reasoning. CHECK exactly 3 sentences

Claude Fable 5.1 passed · 3 sentences

When we enabled reasoning, the model started generating a long chain of internal "thinking" tokens before producing each answer, and we're billed for those tokens at the same output rate even though users never see them. In practice, that hidden reasoning often runs several times longer than the visible response, so the total tokens per request roughly doubled while the number of requests stayed flat. The upside is measurably better accuracy on complex tasks, so the right conversation is whether that quality gain justifies the cost—and if not, we can restrict reasoning to the workflows that actually need it rather than turning it on globally.

out 186 tok latency 3.2 s

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) passed · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning caused each request to generate additional internal reasoning tokens, which are billed like output tokens and can be several times longer than the final answer. Those extra tokens raise cost per call, and longer responses plus occasional retries pushed total usage to roughly double. We can control this with reasoning-effort limits, token budgets, caching, and spend monitoring by use case.

out 253 tok (+178 thinking) latency 5.4 s

Instruction following (exactly three sentences, so countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.

PROMPT This function is supposed to return the longest run of consecutive equal items, but callers report it is off by one on single-element inputs and misses runs that end at the last index. Fix it and explain the bug in one paragraph. CHECK fix passes tests

Claude Fable 5.1 passed · 8/8 cases

```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): cur = cur + 1 if xs[i] == xs[i - 1] else 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` The bug is that `cur` counts *matches between adjacent elements* rather than *elements in the run*: it starts at 0 and only increments when `xs[i] == xs[i-1]`, so a run of length k produces a count of k−1. That's why a single element returns 0 instead of 1, and why every other run also comes out one short — the "misses runs at the end" reports are the same off-by-one seen on inputs like `[1, 2, 2]`, where the trailing run of length 2 is reported as 1 (the original code does update `best` inside the loop, so end-of-list runs aren't actually skipped, just undercounted). […]

out 882 tok (+507 thinking) latency 3.4 s

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) passed · 8/8 cases

```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` The bug is that `cur` starts at `0` and is incremented only when two adjacent items match, so it counts equal adjacent pairs rather than run length; a run of length `k` is recorded as `k - 1`. Consequently, a single-element input returns `0`, and a run ending at the last index—especially a one-element final run—is undercounted or never counted. The fix initializes every run to length `1`, increments on a match, resets to `1` on a mismatch, updates `best` each iteration, and handles the empty input separately.

out 1300 tok (+1095 thinking) latency 11.8 s

Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.

PROMPT Extract a JSON object with fields {company, quarter, revenue_usd_m, growth_pct, guidance} from this text. Use null for anything not stated; add no other fields. CHECK valid JSON, schema exact

Claude Fable 5.1 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null

```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "Q3 (September quarter)", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null } ``` Notes on judgment calls (not part of the object): - **revenue_usd_m**: The text says "412 for the topline" but never states the currency or that the figure is in millions; it's also on a constant-currency basis and prefaced with "call it," so it's approximate. If you want strict literalism, this should be `null`. - **growth_pct**: "Eleven and change" means slightly above 11%; the exact figure isn't given. - **quarter**: "September quarter" is Q3 on a calendar basis, consistent with the reference to a pending Q4 close. - **guidance**: Explicitly withheld, so `null`.

out 633 tok (+349 thinking) latency 3.8 s

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld pending the Q4 close"

{"company":"Meridian Robotics","quarter":"September quarter","revenue_usd_m":412,"growth_pct":11,"guidance":"withheld pending the Q4 close"}

out 1375 tok (+1337 thinking) latency 12.2 s

Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.

PROMPT Write a 120-word product announcement for an API gateway feature that caches prompts across providers. Forbidden words: "seamless", "unlock", "game-changer", "revolutionize", "empower". Exactly one sentence must be a question. CHECK 120 words, 0 banned words

Claude Fable 5.1 passed · 121 words, 0 banned, 1 question

**Introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Caching for the Gateway.** Starting today, your API gateway can cache prompts once and reuse them across OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and any other provider you route to. Long system instructions, retrieval context, and few-shot examples are stored at the gateway layer, so switching models no longer means paying to resend the same tokens. Why send the same 8,000-token preamble to three different vendors when you could send it once? Our cache normalizes prompt segments, fingerprints them, and serves matching prefixes from memory before the request ever reaches an upstream API. Early customers report token costs falling by 30 to 60 percent on high-volume workloads, with median latency dropping alongside. Available today on all Team and Enterprise plans.

out 1722 tok (+1463 thinking) latency 2.9 s

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Today we’re introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Cache in the API gateway. It stores identical prompt requests once and serves cached responses across supported model providers, reducing duplicate calls, latency, and spend. Teams can set cache keys by model, temperature, system prompt, and custom metadata, then choose TTLs per route or workspace. The gateway handles provider fallback while keeping cached results consistent with your policy. Is your team paying twice for the same prompt? Cross-Provider Prompt Cache helps you answer that. Configure it in the gateway dashboard, inspect hit rates by provider, and invalidate entries on demand. Existing gateway routes need no code changes; enable the feature and define your caching rules. Cross-Provider Prompt Cache is available for all API gateway customers.

out 2487 tok (+2335 thinking) latency 17.1 s

Constraint obedience (word budget, banned-word list, the single question), style fingerprint, and length control.

Switch between them with one line

Both ids are in every tab below; the highlighted pair of lines is the only edit. Same endpoint, same key, same request shape.

from openai import OpenAI

client = OpenAI(
    base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
    api_key="sk-syn-...",
)

resp = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="claude-fable-5-1",
    # model="deepseek-v4.1-flash-1017",  # uncomment this line, comment the one above
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
    reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)

Get your API key →

FAQ

Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017)?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) is cheaper on the "Input / 1M tokens" row ($0.3 vs $10, 33× apart). Other rows may point the other way; the table above carries the full rate card, and real cost depends on your mix.

Can I A/B test Claude Fable 5.1 against DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) without two integrations?

Yes. Both are served through the same OpenAI-compatible endpoint with one API key. Switching is a one-line change to the model id, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.

Do Claude Fable 5.1 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) support prompt caching?

Yes. Both bill cache reads below their input rate, so warm-prefix workloads cost less than the list rates suggest. The exact cache-read rows are in the pricing table above.

Related comparisons

From our measured studies