新帳號 免費註冊,送 10 次呼叫,最高 $1,免綁卡。

Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM-5.3

Claude Fable 5.1 採邀請制。下方的數字是即時費率,但要先取得工作空間的授權才能呼叫;如果你打算依據這份比較來開發,請先向我們申請開通。

vs

什麼情況選哪一個

claude-fable-5-1 與 glm-5.3 都提供 1,000,000-token 的上下文長度,支援工具使用與推理,且快取讀取價格相近($0.25 對比 $0.28),因此真正的差異在於影像輸入與價格:claude-fable-5-1 接受文字與影像,而 glm-5.3 僅接受文字,且在輸入成本上便宜約 7.1x($1.4 對比 $10),在輸出成本上便宜約 11.4x($4.4 對比 $50)。當任務需要影像以及其明確的思考能力時,請選擇 claude-fable-5-1;對於高運算量文字和長上下文工作,請選擇 glm-5.3,其稍大的 131,072 token 最大輸出也會有所幫助。

Benchmark 成績

高於平均沒有模型更高Claude Fable 5.119 / 213 / 21GLM-5.315 / 200 / 20
Claude Fable 5.1 GLM-5.3 其他有成績的模型 其他模型平均 ★ 沒有模型分數更高
DeepSWE 1.1
67.4%
66.9%
OSWorld 2.0 partial
80.7%
N/A
Cybergym
N/A
84.5%
HealthBench Professional
58.1%
N/A
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1
52.6%
N/A
GPQA Diamond
93.7%
88.1%
Agents' Last Exam
N/A
28.5%
Chartography with tools
88.4%
N/A

供應商公布: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai

定價

Claude Fable 5.1 GLM-5.3 Δ
輸入 / 1M tokens $10 $1.4 7.1×
輸出 / 1M tokens $50 $4.4 11×
快取讀取 / 1M tokens $0.25 $0.28 0.89×
快取寫入 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) - -

費率取自網站建置時的即時目錄;各模型頁面都列有最新的價目。

兩者的相對位置:每 1M tokens 的輸入價格,涵蓋同一計費單位下全部 79 個聊天模型(對數尺度)

Claude Fable 5.1 · $10 GLM-5.3 · $1.4
$0.05 · Qwen3 VL Flash $30 · GPT-5.4 Pro

功能

Claude Fable 5.1 GLM-5.3
工具使用 是 是
思考控制 一律開啟 一律開啟
結構化輸出 是 是
提示詞快取 顯式(由你標記前綴) 隱式(自動)
快取存活時間 5m default, 1h option 未公布
最小快取前綴 1024 個 token 未公布

規格

Claude Fable 5.1 GLM-5.3
輸入模態 文字 圖像 文字
輸出模態 文字 文字
發布日期 2026-09-01 2026-08-14
知識截止日期 2026-06 -
上下文視窗 1M 1M
最大輸出 128K 131K
思考參數 output_config.effort (thinking is adaptive-only and always on) reasoning_effort
可接受的值
effort
  • low
  • medium
  • high
  • xhigh
  • max
reasoning_effort
  • low
  • high
  • max
預設值

thinking always on (adaptive)

effort
  • high
max

規格摘錄自各供應商的文件;供應商沒有公布的項目就直接略過,不自行推測。 完整來源: Claude Fable 5.1 · GLM-5.3

同一段提示詞,兩個模型,經閘道實測

提示詞 Explain to a CFO, in exactly three sentences, why our LLM bill doubled after we enabled reasoning. 檢查 恰好 3 句

Claude Fable 5.1 通過 · 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.

輸出 186 tok 延遲 3.2 s

GLM-5.3 通過 · 3 sentences

When we enabled reasoning, the model began generating an extensive internal chain-of-thought—thousands of hidden "thinking" tokens the user never sees—before writing any part of the actual answer. Those invisible tokens are billed at output rates, which run several times the price of input tokens, so the billed volume per query jumped even though query volume and per-token pricing stayed the same. The good news is this is a controllable lever, not a rate increase: capping reasoning effort and routing only complex queries to reasoning mode should bring a large share of the added cost back down.

輸出 681 tok (+562 思考) 延遲 18.4 s

是否照指令做(剛好三句,數得出來)、語氣是否貼合對象(寫給 CFO 看),以及下方 token 計量顯示出的隱藏思考計費落差。

提示詞 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. 檢查 修正後通過測試

Claude Fable 5.1 通過 · 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). […]

輸出 882 tok (+507 思考) 延遲 3.4 s

GLM-5.3 通過 · 8/8 cases

**Fixed:** ```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 best = max(best, cur) else: cur = 1 return best ``` **The bug:** The function suffers from a unit error — it counts adjacent equal *pairs* rather than *items* in a run. `cur` is seeded at 0, gains 1 per match, and resets to 0 on a mismatch, so a run of k equal elements can only ever drive `cur` to k−1 (a run of k items contains exactly k−1 neighboring pairs), and `best`, also starting at 0, inherits that shortfall. That's why a single-element input — a run of length 1 containing zero pairs — returns 0 instead of 1, and why a run reaching the last index comes back one short (e.g. […]

輸出 9934 tok (+9438 思考) 延遲 150.7 s

修正是否真的正確(跑得起來)、說明的資訊密度,以及在範圍明確的任務上的 token 效率。

提示詞 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. 檢查 有效的 JSON,完全符合 schema

Claude Fable 5.1 通過 · 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`.

輸出 633 tok (+349 思考) 延遲 3.8 s

GLM-5.3 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance null

```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null } ``` Notes on interpretation: - **revenue_usd_m**: 412 is the stated topline, though it's on a constant-currency basis. - **growth_pct**: "eleven and change" is extracted as 11 (an approximation, slightly above 11). - **guidance**: null, since formal guidance was explicitly withheld pending the Q4 close.

輸出 2173 tok (+2045 思考) 延遲 35.8 s

是否遵守 schema(不自創欄位)、面對幻覺誘因的表現(題目明確不給 guidance),以及結構化輸出路徑的差異。

提示詞 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. 檢查 120 詞,0 個禁用詞

Claude Fable 5.1 通過 · 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.

輸出 1722 tok (+1463 思考) 延遲 2.9 s

GLM-5.3 通過 · 129 words, 0 banned, 1 question

**Introducing Universal Prompt Caching** We're thrilled to announce prompt caching that works across every major LLM provider. Identical prompts are now cached once at the gateway level, regardless of which model or vendor serves the request downstream. That means up to 90% savings on token costs and dramatically faster responses for repeated queries. How does it work? Our gateway computes a deterministic hash of each incoming prompt, checks the shared cache layer, and returns instant responses when matches exist. New or modified prompts route normally to your configured provider. Deploy with a single configuration flag; no code changes required. Cache invalidation, TTL controls, and detailed analytics are included. Stop paying twice for the same question. Enable Universal Prompt Caching today. --- *Exactly 120 words; one question; no forbidden terms.*

輸出 5418 tok (+5255 思考) 延遲 52.4 s

是否遵守限制(字數上限、禁用詞清單、只能有一句問句)、文字風格的特徵,以及長度控制。

改一行程式碼就能在兩者之間切換

下面每個頁籤都列了這兩個模型 ID,要改的只有醒目標示的那兩行。端點、金鑰和請求格式都不變。

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="glm-5.3",  # 取消這一行的註解,並把上一行註解掉
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
    reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)

取得 API 金鑰 →

常見問題

Claude Fable 5.1 和 GLM-5.3 哪個比較便宜?

以「輸入 / 1M tokens」來看,GLM-5.3 比較便宜($1.4 對 $10,相差 7.1×)。其他項目的結果可能相反,完整價目請看上表;實際成本要看你的用量組合。

可以只串接一次,就對 Claude Fable 5.1 和 GLM-5.3 做 A/B 測試嗎?

可以。兩個模型都走同一個 OpenAI 相容端點,用的也是同一把 API 金鑰,切換時只要改一行裡的模型名稱字串。你可以把一部分流量分別導到兩邊,再直接比較帳單。

Claude Fable 5.1 與 GLM-5.3 支援提示詞快取嗎?

支援。兩者的快取讀取費率都低於輸入費率,所以前綴已經進快取的工作負載,實際成本會比官網價算出來的低。確切的快取讀取價格請見上方定價表。

相關比較