Claude Fable 5.1 vs MiniMax M3

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

minimax-m3 的輸入輸出便宜得多,支援影片輸入,輸出空間也大得多。若結構化輸出或既有的 Anthropic 高階模型流程足以支持較高費用,可選 claude-fable-5-1。

Benchmark 成績

MiniMax M3:供應商沒有公布 benchmark 成績。

高於平均沒有模型更高Claude Fable 5.119 / 213 / 21
Claude Fable 5.1 MiniMax M3 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%
N/A
OSWorld 2.0 partial
80.7%
N/A
HealthBench Professional
58.1%
N/A
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1
52.6%
N/A
GPQA Diamond
93.7%
N/A
AutomationBench
31.4%
N/A
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 MiniMax M3 Δ
輸入 / 1M tokens $10 $0.3 33×
輸出 / 1M tokens $50 $1.2 42×
快取讀取 / 1M tokens $0.25 $0.06 4.2×
快取寫入 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) 不額外計費 -

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 80 個聊天模型(對數尺度)

Claude Fable 5.1 · $10 MiniMax M3 · $0.3
$0.05 · Qwen3 VL Flash $30 · GPT-5.4 Pro

功能

Claude Fable 5.1 MiniMax M3
工具使用 是 是
思考控制 一律開啟 可設定
結構化輸出 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 1,024 個 token 512 個 token

規格

Claude Fable 5.1 MiniMax M3
輸入模態 文字 圖像 文字 圖像 影片
輸出模態 文字 文字
發布日期 2026-09-01 2026-06-01
知識截止日期 2026-06 -
上下文視窗 1M 1M
最大輸出 128K 524K
思考參數 output_config.effort (thinking is adaptive-only and always on)
  • thinking.type
  • reasoning_split
可接受的值
effort
  • low
  • medium
  • high
  • xhigh
  • max
thinking.type
  • adaptive
  • disabled
reasoning_split
  • boolean
預設值

thinking always on (adaptive)

effort
  • high
adaptive: thinking on, with the model deciding when extra reasoning helps

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 · MiniMax M3

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

MiniMax M3 通過 · 3 sentences

Reasoning models don't just answer — they first generate extensive internal "thinking" tokens to work through the problem step-by-step, and you're billed for all of those tokens even though users never see them. A query that previously cost ~200 tokens may now cost 2,000–10,000 once reasoning is enabled, multiplying per-query spend by roughly 5–50x while the visible output stayed the same size — that's the doubling. The lever is tuning: cap reasoning effort on simple queries, cache the reasoning traces, and reserve the full reasoning model for only your hardest 10–20% of requests, which typically restores 60–80% of the savings.

輸出 764 tok (+629 思考) 延遲 3.5 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

MiniMax M3 通過 · 8/8 cases

The bug is that the loop starts at index 1 and treats `cur` as the number of *equal transitions* rather than the run length, so a run of *k* consecutive equal items is reported as `k − 1`, and a single-element list (where the loop body never executes) returns 0 instead of 1. A correct version tracks the actual run length by seeding `cur = 1` and resetting it to 1 (not 0) on a mismatch: ```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 if cur > best: best = cur return best ``` Now `[5]` returns `1`, `[1,1,1]` returns `3`, and a run like `[1,2,2,2]` that ends at the last index is correctly captured as `3` because `cur` is updated before `best` is compared on every iteration, including the final one.

輸出 845 tok (+596 思考) 延遲 3.5 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

MiniMax M3 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance null

```json { "company": null, "quarter": "Q3", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": null, "guidance": null } ```

輸出 1002 tok (+955 思考) 延遲 3.6 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

MiniMax M3 通過 · 121 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Introducing PromptCache, our intelligent caching layer for the API gateway. Tired of paying twice for identical requests? The feature stores prompt-response pairs across every connected provider, returning cached results instead of hitting costly endpoints. Deployment requires only a single configuration flag, and semantic similarity detection happens automatically. Latency drops up to 70% on repeated traffic while costs follow the same downward curve. Developers access detailed cache hit metrics, eviction logs, and provider breakdowns through the dashboard. Whether routing to OpenAI, Anthropic, or local models, every cached token saves time and money. The cache respects TTL policies, supports manual purging, and encrypts stored content. Available today for Pro and Enterprise tiers—enable PromptCache on existing endpoints and watch inference bills shrink immediately.

輸出 2808 tok (+2656 思考) 延遲 6.0 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="minimax-m3",  # 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 MiniMax M3 哪個比較便宜?

以「輸入 / 1M tokens」來看,MiniMax M3 比較便宜($0.3 對 $10,相差 33×)。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 MiniMax M3 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 MiniMax M3 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