Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5
Claude Fable 5.1 采用邀请制提供。下方数据为其实时费率,但调用前需先获得工作区授权;在基于此对比进行开发前,请向我们申请访问权限。
何时用哪一个
这两者在 Claude 系列中相隔两个层级:claude-fable-5-1 是最高层级,Anthropic 将其定位为处理高要求推理和长周期智能体工作;而 claude-sonnet-5-5 是较低层级,官方指出它速度较快,而 Fable 则较慢。两者均接受文本和图像输入,具备 1000000-token 上下文和 128000 最大输出,因此价格标志着两者的差距:claude-fable-5-1 的输入为 $10,输出为 $50,是 claude-sonnet-5-5(输入 $2,输出 $10)的 5x,缓存读取价格为 $0.25,而后者为 $0.2。将日常和高并发流量运行在 claude-sonnet-5-5 上,对于有必要使用的长周期任务,再升级至 claude-fable-5-1。
Benchmark 成绩
Claude Sonnet 5.5:厂商没有公布过 benchmark 成绩。
厂商公布: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
定价
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 输入 / 1M tokens | $10 | $2 | 5× |
| 输出 / 1M tokens | $50 | $10 | 5× |
| 缓存读取 / 1M tokens | $0.25 | $0.2 | 1.3× |
| 缓存写入 | 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) | 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) | - |
费率取自构建时的实时目录;每个模型页面均附有当前的费率卡。
它们的位置 — 以该计费单位计费的所有 76 个 聊天 模型的 每 1M token 的输入价格(对数刻度)
能力
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| 工具使用 | 是 | 是 |
| 思考控制 | 始终开启 | 始终开启 |
| 结构化输出 | 是 | 是 |
| 提示词缓存 | 显式(由您标记前缀) | 显式(由您标记前缀) |
| 缓存生存时间 | 5m default, 1h option | 5m default, 1h option |
| 最小缓存前缀 | 1024 个 token | 1024 个 token |
规格
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| 输入模态 | 文本 图像 | 文本 图像 |
| 输出模态 | 文本 | 文本 |
| 发布日期 | 2026-09-01 | 2026-09-28 |
| 知识截止日期 | 2026-06 | 2026-06 |
| 上下文窗口 | 1M | 1M |
| 最大输出 | 128K | 128K |
| 思考参数 | output_config.effort (thinking is adaptive-only and always on) | thinking.type |
| 允许的值 | effort
| thinking.type
|
| 默认值 | thinking always on (adaptive) effort
| adaptive, effort high |
规格转录自各供应商的文档;若供应商未发布某项数据,则直接省略该行,而非进行推断。 完整来源: Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Sonnet 5.5
单个 Prompt,两个模型 —— 通过网关实测
Claude Fable 5.1 通过 · 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.
输出 186 tok 延迟 3.2 s
Claude Sonnet 5.5 通过 · 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.
输出 205 tok 延迟 3.6 s
指令遵循(恰好三句,可数)、受众适配(面向 CFO 的语气),以及下方 token 计量所暴露的隐藏思考计费缺口。
Claude Fable 5.1 通过 · 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). […]
输出 882 tok (+507 思考) 延迟 3.4 s
Claude Sonnet 5.5 通过 · 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. […]
输出 444 tok 延迟 6.7 s
修复是否真的正确(可运行)、解释的信息密度,以及在一个边界明确的任务上的 token 效率。
Claude Fable 5.1 通过 · 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`.
输出 633 tok (+349 思考) 延迟 3.8 s
Claude Sonnet 5.5 通过 · 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.
输出 300 tok 延迟 3.5 s
schema 服从度(不臆造字段)、幻觉压力(guidance 明确被暂缓给出),以及结构化输出路径的差异。
Claude Fable 5.1 通过 · 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.
输出 1722 tok (+1463 思考) 延迟 2.9 s
Claude Sonnet 5.5 通过 · 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.
输出 266 tok 延迟 3.8 s
约束服从度(字数预算、禁用词表、唯一的那句问句)、文风指纹,以及长度控制。
只需一行代码即可在它们之间切换
两个 ID 都包含在下方的每个选项卡中 — 高亮显示的两行是唯一的修改。相同的端点,相同的密钥,相同的请求结构。
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", # 取消注释此行,注释上一行
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", // 取消注释此行,注释上一行
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", # 取消注释此行,注释上一行
"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", // 取消注释此行,注释上一行
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") // 取消注释此行,注释上一行
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));常见问题
Claude Fable 5.1 和 Claude Sonnet 5.5 哪个更便宜?
在 输入 / 1m tokens 方面,Claude Sonnet 5.5 更便宜($2 对比 $10,相差 5.0×)。其他行可能得出相反的结论——上方表格提供了完整信息,实际成本取决于你的组合使用情况。
我可以在不进行两次集成的情况下,对 Claude Fable 5.1 和 Claude Sonnet 5.5 进行 A/B 测试吗?
可以。两者均通过同一个兼容 OpenAI 的端点提供服务,并使用同一把 API 密钥——切换只需更改一行模型字符串,因此你可以将一部分流量路由到各个模型并直接比较账单。
Claude Fable 5.1 和 Claude Sonnet 5.5 支持提示词缓存吗?
是的 —— 两者对缓存读取的计费均低于其输入费率,因此热前缀工作负载的成本低于标价。准确的缓存读取行位于上方的定价表中。