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

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.8 Flash

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 share a 1,000,000-token context and accept text and images, but the rate cards diverge sharply: claude-fable-5-1 charges $10 input and $50 output per million tokens, roughly 67x and 106x the $0.15 and $0.47 of qwen3.8-flash. Pick claude-fable-5-1 when you want its always-on thinking (it cannot be disabled) for chat, code and tool use; pick qwen3.8-flash for high-volume work where cost matters, where you need video input, a slightly larger 131,072-token max output, or the ability to switch thinking off per request.

Benchmarks

Above averageNo peer higherClaude Fable 5.116 / 185 / 18Qwen3.8 Flash13 / 163 / 16
Claude Fable 5.1 Qwen3.8 Flash other models measured peer average no peer scored higher
DeepSWE 1.1
67.4%
58.7%
OSWorld 2.0 partial
no peer scored higher 77.9%
52.3%
HealthBench Professional
58.1%
N/A
JobBench
N/A
55.7%
GPQA Diamond
93.7%
91.7%
ERQA
N/A
no peer scored higher 72.3%
AutomationBench
31.4%
N/A
LVBench
N/A
76.6%

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

Pricing

Claude Fable 5.1 Qwen3.8 Flash Δ
Input / 1M tokens $10 $0.15 67×
Output / 1M tokens $50 $0.47 106×
Cache read / 1M tokens $0.25 $0.016 16×
Cache write 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) 1.25x -

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

Where they sit - input price per 1M tokens across all 71 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)

$0.05 · Qwen3 VL Flash $30 · GPT-5.4 Pro

Capabilities

Claude Fable 5.1 Qwen3.8 Flash
Tool use yes yes
Thinking control always on configurable
Structured output yes yes
Prompt caching explicit (you mark the prefix) implicit + explicit
Cache lifetime 5m default, 1h option explicit: 5m, reset on hit
Minimum cached prefix 1024 tokens 1024 tokens

Specs

Claude Fable 5.1 Qwen3.8 Flash
Input modalities text image text image video
Output modalities text text
Released 2026-09-01 2026-08-27
Knowledge cutoff 2026-06 -
Context window 1M 1M
Max output 128K 131K
Thinking parameter output_config.effort (thinking is adaptive-only and always on)
  • enable_thinking
  • thinking_budget
  • preserve_thinking
Accepted values
effort
  • low
  • medium
  • high
  • xhigh
  • max
enable_thinking
  • true
  • false
thinking_budget
  • in tokens
preserve_thinking
  • true
  • false
Default

thinking always on (adaptive)

effort
  • high

on

qwen3.8-flash is hybrid thinking with thinking enabled by default, thinking_budget defaults to the 262,144-token chain maximum, and preserve_thinking is off

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 · Qwen3.8 Flash

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

Qwen3.8 Flash passed · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning makes the model spend additional output tokens to plan and validate answers before responding, and those tokens are billed. It also increases compute and latency per request, so each task consumes more capacity than a non-reasoning call. As a result, billable tokens and compute roughly doubled, directly driving the higher invoice.

out 330 tok (+262 thinking) latency 8.9 s

Instruction following (exactly three sentences - 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

Qwen3.8 Flash passed · 8/8 cases

```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 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 the original version counts adjacent equal pairs rather than items in a run, starting both `cur` and `best` at `0`, and it resets `cur` to `0` after a mismatch, thereby discarding the first element of the new run. That makes single-element inputs return `0`, and because every run is effectively measured in “steps” between equal elements, the last element is not counted—particularly noticeable when the longest run ends at the final index.

out 2123 tok (+1933 thinking) latency 43.8 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

Qwen3.8 Flash passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null

{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null }

out 519 tok (+463 thinking) latency 10.5 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

Qwen3.8 Flash passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question

We are announcing prompt caching across providers in our API gateway. Store approved prompt outputs once and reuse them across supported model providers, cutting latency, cost, and duplicate token spend. The feature matches identical requests, checks validity, and returns cached results while preserving routing controls. Developers keep existing endpoints; the gateway manages storage, invalidation, and provider differences. This reduces noisy repeat calls, improves steady responses, and frees teams to focus on better agent workflows. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Mistral, and custom routes are supported. Cache hits appear in analytics with latency, token, and cost reductions visible. Check retention and privacy rules before enabling it. Ready to add cache controls to your gateway? Enable it in settings and watch spend drop now.

out 5958 tok (+5805 thinking) latency 88.8 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="qwen3.8-flash",  # 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 Qwen3.8 Flash?

Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($0.15 vs $10, 67× apart). Other rows may point the other way - the table above carries the full card, and real cost depends on your mix.

Can I A/B test Claude Fable 5.1 against Qwen3.8 Flash without two integrations?

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

Do Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen3.8 Flash support prompt caching?

Yes - both bill cached 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