Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Fable 5.1
Claude Fable 5 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.
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
These two are near-identical on the facts: both take text and image in, both return text, both carry a 1000000-token context with 128000 max output, the same chat, code, thinking, tools and reasoning flags, thinking that cannot be disabled, and the same $10 input and $50 output per million tokens. The separation is cache reads and recency: claude-fable-5-1 charges $0.25 per million cached input tokens against $1 for claude-fable-5, a 4x difference, and carries a 2026-06 knowledge cutoff versus 2026-01. Pick 5.1 for cache-heavy or repeated-prefix workloads; stay on claude-fable-5 only if you are already pinned to it.
Benchmarks
18 measured on both.
Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
Pricing
| Claude Fable 5 | Claude Fable 5.1 | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $10 | $10 | = |
| Output / 1M tokens | $50 | $50 | = |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | $1 | $0.25 | 4× |
| Cache write | 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) | 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) | - |
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 | Claude Fable 5.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Tool calling | yes | yes |
| Thinking control | always on | always on |
| Structured output | yes | yes |
| Prompt caching | explicit (you mark the prefix) | explicit (you mark the prefix) |
| Cache lifetime | 5m default, 1h option | 5m default, 1h option |
| Minimum cached prefix | 1024 tokens | 1024 tokens |
Specs
| Claude Fable 5 | Claude Fable 5.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Input modalities | text image | text image |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | 2026-06-09 | 2026-09-01 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-01 | 2026-06 |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 128K |
| Thinking parameter | output_config.effort (thinking.type is adaptive-only and needs no configuration) | output_config.effort (thinking is adaptive-only and always on) |
| Accepted values | effort
both "enabled" and "disabled" return 400 | effort
|
| Default | thinking always on (adaptive) effort
| thinking always on (adaptive) effort
|
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 · Claude Fable 5.1
One prompt, both models, measured through the gateway
Claude Fable 5 passed · 3 sentences
When we enabled reasoning, the model began generating extensive internal "thinking" tokens before each answer, and those tokens are billed as output even though users never see them. Output tokens typically cost several times more than input tokens, so adding thousands of hidden reasoning tokens per request effectively multiplied our per-query cost. In short, we're paying for a much longer response behind the scenes in exchange for higher answer quality, and we can manage this by tuning reasoning effort levels or reserving reasoning mode for complex tasks only.
out 228 tok latency 6.7 s
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
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 passed · 8/8 cases
## Fixed code ```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 ``` ## Explanation The original function counts **adjacent equal pairs** rather than **items in a run**: a run of length *n* contains only *n − 1* equal neighbor pairs, so every result is off by one — a single-element list yields 0 instead of 1, and `[1, 2, 2]` yields 1 instead of 2 (which callers perceive as "missing" the run at the end). The fix is to initialize both `cur` and `best` to 1 (any nonempty list has a run of at least length 1), reset `cur` to 1 rather than 0 when
out 531 tok latency 12.5 s
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
Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.
Claude Fable 5 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 interpretation: "up eleven and change" is rendered as 11 (the precise figure isn't stated), and guidance is null because it was explicitly withheld.
out 192 tok latency 6.5 s
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
Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.
Claude Fable 5 passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
**Introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Caching for our API Gateway** Starting today, your repeated prompts are cached once and reused across OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and any other provider you route through the gateway. Instead of paying full token costs every time your application sends the same system prompt or context block, the gateway detects matching prefixes and serves cached results in milliseconds. Why keep spending money and latency on identical requests? Early adopters report cost reductions of up to 60 percent on high-volume workloads, along with faster median response times. Configuration is simple: enable caching in your dashboard, set a TTL, and choose which routes participate. Cache entries are encrypted at rest and never shared between accounts. Available now on all plans.
out 1173 tok latency 18.2 s
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
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",
# model="claude-fable-5-1", # 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",
// model: "claude-fable-5-1", // 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",
# "model": "claude-fable-5-1", # 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",
// Model: "claude-fable-5-1", // 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")
// .model("claude-fable-5-1") // 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 or Claude Fable 5.1?
They list the same price on the "Input / 1M tokens" row ($10), so price does not decide this one. See the specs and capabilities below.
Can I A/B test Claude Fable 5 against Claude Fable 5.1 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 and Claude Fable 5.1 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.