新人 免费注册,送 10 次调用,最高 $1,免绑卡。

Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6.1 Sol

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。

vs

何时用哪一个

两者都接受文本和图像输入,返回文本,输出上限为 128,000 个 Token,并提供大致相同的上下文(claude-fable-5-1 为 1,000,000,而 gpt-6.1-sol 为 1,050,000),且都不允许您关闭推理。它们处于不同的价格层级:claude-fable-5-1 是 Anthropic 的最高层级,定位用于要求严苛的推理和长周期智能体工作,输入为 $10,输出为 $50,是 gpt-6.1-sol 的 $2 和 $10 的 5x,且缓存读取为 $0.25 对 $0.1。如果在高吞吐量且单次调用成本很重要的情况下,请选择 gpt-6.1-sol;对于您自己的评估表明溢价物有所值的长周期任务,请选择 claude-fable-5-1。

Benchmark 成绩

GPT-6.1 Sol:厂商没有公布过 benchmark 成绩。

高于同侪均值无人分数更高Claude Fable 5.119 / 213 / 21
Claude Fable 5.1 GPT-6.1 Sol 其他被测模型 同侪均值 ★ 无人分数更高
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

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

定价

Claude Fable 5.1 GPT-6.1 Sol Δ
输入 / 1M tokens $10 $2 5×
输出 / 1M tokens $50 $10 5×
缓存读取 / 1M tokens $0.25 $0.1 2.5×
缓存写入 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) 不单独收费 -

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 GPT-6.1 Sol
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) 隐式(自动)
缓存生存时间 5m default, 1h option 5-10m, up to 1h
最小缓存前缀 1024 个 token 1024 个 token

规格

Claude Fable 5.1 GPT-6.1 Sol
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 2026-09-29
知识截止日期 2026-06 2026-04
上下文窗口 1M 1.1M
最大输出 128K 128K
思考参数 output_config.effort (thinking is adaptive-only and always on) reasoning.effort
允许的值
effort
  • low
  • medium
  • high
  • xhigh
  • max
reasoning.effort
  • low
  • medium
  • high
  • xhigh
  • max
默认值

thinking always on (adaptive)

effort
  • high
medium

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 · GPT-6.1 Sol

单个 Prompt,两个模型 —— 通过网关实测

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

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

GPT-6.1 Sol 通过 · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning makes the model do more computational work before answering, and many providers bill the resulting reasoning tokens even though users never see them. That means the same number of requests can cost twice as much because each request consumes more billable tokens, even if the visible answers stay the same length. We should confirm the increase in our usage breakdown and reserve higher reasoning levels for tasks where the improvement justifies the added cost.

输出 144 tok (+54 思考) 延迟 6.6 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。

提示词 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. 检查 修复通过测试

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

GPT-6.1 Sol 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)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` The original function counts equal adjacent pairs rather than items in a run: a run of length `n` has only `n - 1` equal pairs, so a single-element input returns `0`, and a run ending at the last index is also undercounted. It does process the last index, so the issue is not a missing final check. Initializing each nonempty run to `1` and updating `best` after every iteration correctly counts items, including singleton and trailing runs; empty inputs still return `0`.

输出 189 tok 延迟 6.3 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。

提示词 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. 检查 合法 JSON,schema 精确

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

GPT-6.1 Sol 通过 · 5/5 fields, guidance "Withheld pending the Q4 close"

{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": null, "growth_pct": "eleven and change", "guidance": "Withheld pending the Q4 close" }

输出 345 tok (+285 思考) 延迟 10.2 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。

提示词 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. 检查 120 词,0 个禁用词

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

GPT-6.1 Sol 通过 · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Cache, a new API gateway feature that stores reusable prompts and manages caching across your supported AI providers. Why rebuild the same context every time your application switches models? With one configuration, teams can reuse shared instructions, standardize cache policies, and reduce repeated prompt processing wherever provider caching is available. The gateway handles provider-specific requirements while giving you clear visibility into cache hits, usage, and estimated savings. Set expiration windows, isolate cached content by project, and invalidate entries when prompts change. Your existing routing logic stays intact, so you can compare models without rebuilding your caching workflow. […]

输出 588 tok (+435 思考) 延迟 13.9 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="gpt-6.1-sol",  # 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)

获取 API 密钥 →

常见问题

Claude Fable 5.1 和 GPT-6.1 Sol 哪个更便宜?

在 输入 / 1m tokens 方面,GPT-6.1 Sol 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 GPT-6.1 Sol 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 GPT-6.1 Sol 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。

相关对比

来自我们的实测研究