Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5
Claude Fable 5.1 è disponibile su invito. Le cifre sottostanti sono le tariffe in tempo reale, ma le chiamate richiedono prima un'autorizzazione per il workspace; richiedici l'accesso prima di basare il tuo sviluppo su questo confronto.
Quale scegliere e quando
Questi si collocano a due livelli di distanza nella linea Claude: claude-fable-5-1 è il livello superiore, che Anthropic posiziona per il ragionamento impegnativo e il lavoro agenziale a lungo orizzonte, e claude-sonnet-5-5 è il livello inferiore, che elenca come veloce laddove Fable è più lento. Entrambi accettano testo e immagini in input e supportano un contesto di 1000000 di token con 128000 di output massimo, quindi il prezzo segna il divario: claude-fable-5-1 costa $10 in input e $50 in output, 5x rispetto a claude-sonnet-5-5 a $2 e $10, con letture in cache a $0.25 contro $0.2. Gestisci il traffico quotidiano e ad alto volume su claude-sonnet-5-5, e passa a claude-fable-5-1 per i task a lungo orizzonte che lo giustificano.
Benchmark
Claude Sonnet 5.5: il fornitore non ha pubblicato risultati di benchmark.
Dati pubblicati dai fornitori: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
Prezzi
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M token | $10 | $2 | 5× |
| Output / 1M token | $50 | $10 | 5× |
| Lettura cache / 1M token | $0.25 | $0.2 | 1.3× |
| Scrittura in cache | 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) | 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) | - |
Le tariffe provengono dal catalogo live al momento della build; la pagina di ciascun modello riporta la scheda attuale.
Dove si posizionano - prezzo di input per 1M di token rispetto a tutti gli 76 modelli chat con questa unità di fatturazione (scala logaritmica)
Capacità
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Utilizzo dei tool | sì | sì |
| Controllo del ragionamento | sempre attivo | sempre attivo |
| Output strutturato | sì | sì |
| Prompt caching | esplicito (contrassegni il prefisso) | esplicito (contrassegni il prefisso) |
| Durata della cache | 5m default, 1h option | 5m default, 1h option |
| Prefisso minimo in cache | 1024 token | 1024 token |
Specifiche
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Modalità di input | testo immagine | testo immagine |
| Modalità di output | testo | testo |
| Rilascio | 2026-09-01 | 2026-09-28 |
| Cutoff di conoscenza | 2026-06 | 2026-06 |
| Finestra di contesto | 1M | 1M |
| Output massimo | 128K | 128K |
| Parametro thinking | output_config.effort (thinking is adaptive-only and always on) | thinking.type |
| Valori accettati | effort
| thinking.type
|
| Predefinito | thinking always on (adaptive) effort
| adaptive, effort high |
Le specifiche sono trascritte dalla documentazione di ciascun fornitore; una riga che un fornitore non pubblica viene omessa anziché essere dedotta. Fonti complete: Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Sonnet 5.5
Un solo prompt, entrambi i modelli - misurati attraverso il gateway
Claude Fable 5.1 superato · 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 latenza 3.2 s
Claude Sonnet 5.5 superato · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning makes the model "think" before it answers, and that internal thinking is generated as extra text (reasoning tokens) that we are billed for at the same rate as output tokens, even though users never see it. Output tokens also cost several times more than input tokens, so a single request that used to produce a short answer can now generate many times more billable text behind the scenes. Because our request volume and prompts didn't change, the doubling comes almost entirely from this hidden thinking, and we can bring it down by limiting reasoning effort, turning it off for simple tasks, and reserving it for the workloads where the accuracy gain justifies the cost.
out 205 tok latenza 3.6 s
Rispetto dell'istruzione (esattamente tre frasi - contabili), adattamento al pubblico (registro da CFO), e il divario di fatturazione del pensiero nascosto che i contatori di token qui sotto rivelano.
Claude Fable 5.1 superato · 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 ragionamento) latenza 3.4 s
Claude Sonnet 5.5 superato · 8/8 cases
**The bug:** `cur` counts the number of *adjacent equal pairs* rather than the number of items in the run. A run of length k contains only k−1 such pairs, so every result is one too small. The counter also starts at 0 and the loop starts at index 1, so a single-element list never updates `best` and returns 0 instead of 1. (An empty list should return 0.) In addition, `cur` resets to 0 on a mismatch, when it should reset to 1, because the item at `xs[i]` begins a new run of length 1. The claim that it "misses runs ending at the last index" is really the same off-by-one: the final run is counted, but as one less than its true length. Because `best` is updated inside the loop on every extension, the last run isn't skipped. […]
out 444 tok latenza 6.7 s
Se la correzione è davvero giusta (eseguibile), la densità della spiegazione, e l'efficienza in token su un compito delimitato.
Claude Fable 5.1 superato · 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 ragionamento) latenza 3.8 s
Claude Sonnet 5.5 superato · 5/5 fields, guidance null
Here is the extracted JSON: ```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null } ``` Notes on the choices: - **quarter**: The text says "September quarter" without specifying a fiscal year or Q-number, so I kept the wording as stated. - **revenue_usd_m**: The text gives "412" for the topline, with no currency or unit stated explicitly. I've taken it as 412 million USD per the field definition, but the text does not confirm that, and the figure is constant-currency. - **growth_pct**: "Eleven and change" means slightly above 11, so 11 is an approximation. The exact figure isn't given. - **guidance**: Guidance is withheld pending the Q4 close, so no guidance is stated, hence null.
out 300 tok latenza 3.5 s
Aderenza allo schema (nessun campo inventato), pressione di allucinazione (guidance è esplicitamente sospesa), e differenze nel percorso di output strutturato.
Claude Fable 5.1 superato · 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 ragionamento) latenza 2.9 s
Claude Sonnet 5.5 superato · 122 words, 0 banned, 1 question
**Introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Caching** Your API gateway now caches prompts across every connected LLM provider, whether you route traffic to OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or a self-hosted model. Here's how it works: the gateway fingerprints each prompt prefix, stores it centrally, and applies the right provider-specific caching mechanism automatically. When you switch providers or fail over during an outage, your cached context follows you. Early testing shows input token costs dropping by up to 70% on repeated system prompts and long documents, with latency improvements of 40% or more on cache hits. Tired of paying to send the same instructions thousands of times a day? Enable it with one configuration flag. Cache rules, TTLs, and per-team isolation are available in the dashboard today.
out 266 tok latenza 3.8 s
Rispetto dei vincoli (budget di parole, elenco di parole vietate, l'unica domanda), impronta stilistica, e controllo della lunghezza.
Passa dall'uno all'altro con una sola riga
Entrambi gli id sono presenti in ogni scheda qui sotto - la coppia di righe evidenziata è l'unica modifica. Stesso endpoint, stessa chiave, stessa struttura della richiesta.
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="claude-sonnet-5-5", # decommenta questa riga, commenta quella sopra
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: "claude-sonnet-5-5", // decommenta questa riga, commenta quella sopra
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": "claude-sonnet-5-5", # decommenta questa riga, commenta quella sopra
"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: "claude-sonnet-5-5", // decommenta questa riga, commenta quella sopra
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("claude-sonnet-5-5") // decommenta questa riga, commenta quella sopra
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));FAQ
Qual è più economico, Claude Fable 5.1 o Claude Sonnet 5.5?
Claude Sonnet 5.5 è più economico per input / 1m token ($2 contro $10, 5.0× di differenza). Altre righe potrebbero indicare il contrario - la tabella sopra riporta la scheda completa, e il costo reale dipende dal tuo mix.
Posso fare un A/B test di Claude Fable 5.1 contro Claude Sonnet 5.5 senza due integrazioni?
Sì. Entrambi sono serviti tramite lo stesso endpoint compatibile con OpenAI con una singola chiave API - il passaggio richiede la modifica della stringa del modello in una sola riga, quindi puoi instradare una frazione del traffico verso ciascuno e confrontare direttamente le fatture.
Claude Fable 5.1 e Claude Sonnet 5.5 supportano il prompt caching?
Sì - entrambi fatturano le letture in cache a un prezzo inferiore rispetto alla loro tariffa di input, quindi i carichi di lavoro con warm-prefix costano meno di quanto suggeriscano le tariffe di listino. Le righe esatte per la lettura in cache si trovano nella tabella dei prezzi qui sopra.