Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-5.6 Sol
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.
Which one, when
Both take text and image in, return text, and cap output at 128000 tokens, with near-identical context windows of 1000000 for claude-fable-5-1 and 1050000 for gpt-5.6-sol. gpt-5.6-sol is 2.5x cheaper on both input ($4 vs $10) and output ($20 vs $50), and it is the one whose thinking can be turned off, which suits high-volume work. Pick claude-fable-5-1 when you want reasoning always on, heavy prompt reuse (cache reads are $0.25 against $0.4) or its 2026-06 knowledge cutoff.
Benchmarks
20 measured on both, 1 tied.
Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
Pricing
| Claude Fable 5.1 | GPT-5.6 Sol | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $10 | $4 | 2.5× |
| Output / 1M tokens | $50 | $20 | 2.5× |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | $0.25 | $0.4 | 0.63× |
| 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 | GPT-5.6 Sol | |
|---|---|---|
| Tool calling | yes | yes |
| Thinking control | always on | configurable |
| Structured output | yes | yes |
| Prompt caching | explicit (you mark the prefix) | implicit (automatic) |
| Cache lifetime | 5m default, 1h option | 5-10m, up to 1h |
| Minimum cached prefix | 1024 tokens | 1024 tokens |
Specs
| Claude Fable 5.1 | GPT-5.6 Sol | |
|---|---|---|
| Input modalities | text image | text image |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2026-07-09 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-06 | 2026-02 |
| Context window | 1M | 1.1M |
| Max output | 128K | 128K |
| Thinking parameter | output_config.effort (thinking is adaptive-only and always on) | reasoning.effort |
| Accepted values | effort
| reasoning.effort
|
| Default | thinking always on (adaptive) effort
| medium |
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 · GPT-5.6 Sol
One prompt, both models, measured through the gateway
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
GPT-5.6 Sol passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning makes the model generate additional internal tokens before producing an answer, so each request consumes more billable compute. Reasoning may also increase response length, latency, tool calls, and retries, further raising per-request cost. In short, usage volume may be unchanged, but the cost per task increased enough to double the bill.
out 111 tok (+34 thinking) latency 2.3 s
Instruction following (exactly three sentences, so countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.
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
GPT-5.6 Sol 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 original function counted equal *adjacencies* rather than items, so a run of length one produced `0` and every longer run was undercounted by one. Initializing `cur` and `best` to `1` for nonempty input makes them represent item counts, resetting `cur` to `1` starts a new run at the current item, and updating `best` on every iteration ensures a run reaching the final index is included.
out 316 tok (+135 thinking) latency 5.2 s
Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.
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
GPT-5.6 Sol 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 194 tok (+147 thinking) latency 3.2 s
Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.
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
GPT-5.6 Sol passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Today, we’re introducing Provider Prompt Cache, a new API gateway feature that reuses prompt prefixes across supported AI providers, reducing latency, token costs, and duplicated processing. Teams can define cache policies once, route requests dynamically, and preserve provider flexibility without rewriting application logic. Switching models during testing or failover? The gateway identifies eligible prompt segments, applies provider-specific caching controls, and reports hits, misses, savings, and expiration details through unified logs and metrics. Configurable TTLs, tenant isolation, encryption, and cache-bypass options help teams balance performance, privacy, and freshness for every workload. Provider Prompt Cache is available today in beta through the dashboard and API, with SDK examples and migration guidance included. […]
out 733 tok (+564 thinking) latency 7.7 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="gpt-5.6-sol", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)import OpenAI from "openai";
const client = new OpenAI({
baseURL: "https://synthorai.io/v1",
apiKey: "sk-syn-...",
});
const resp = await client.chat.completions.create({
model: "claude-fable-5-1",
// model: "gpt-5.6-sol", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages: [{ role: "user", content: "Summarize this diff" }],
reasoning_effort: "medium",
});
console.log(resp.choices[0].message.content);curl https://synthorai.io/v1/chat/completions \
-H "Authorization: Bearer sk-syn-..." \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"model": "claude-fable-5-1",
# "model": "gpt-5.6-sol", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}],
"reasoning_effort": "medium"
}'package main
import (
"context"
"fmt"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3/option"
)
func main() {
client := openai.NewClient(
option.WithBaseURL("https://synthorai.io/v1"),
option.WithAPIKey("sk-syn-..."),
)
resp, _ := client.Chat.Completions.New(context.TODO(), openai.ChatCompletionNewParams{
Model: "claude-fable-5-1",
// Model: "gpt-5.6-sol", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
Messages: []openai.ChatCompletionMessageParamUnion{
openai.UserMessage("Summarize this diff"),
},
ReasoningEffort: openai.ReasoningEffortMedium,
})
fmt.Println(resp.Choices[0].Message.Content)
}import com.openai.client.OpenAIClient;
import com.openai.client.okhttp.OpenAIOkHttpClient;
import com.openai.models.chat.completions.*;
import com.openai.models.ReasoningEffort;
OpenAIClient client = OpenAIOkHttpClient.builder()
.baseUrl("https://synthorai.io/v1")
.apiKey("sk-syn-...")
.build();
ChatCompletion resp = client.chat().completions().create(
ChatCompletionCreateParams.builder()
.model("claude-fable-5-1")
// .model("gpt-5.6-sol") // uncomment this line, comment the one above
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));FAQ
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or GPT-5.6 Sol?
GPT-5.6 Sol is cheaper on the "Input / 1M tokens" row ($4 vs $10, 2.5× 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 GPT-5.6 Sol 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 GPT-5.6 Sol 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.