Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback) vs GLM-5.3-Flash
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or GLM-5.3-Flash by Z AI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallbac… scores 9.4 points higher (51.2 vs 41.8) but costs 17× as much to run the benchmark ($5242 vs $306; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallbac… when you need intelligence above 41.8, and GLM-5.3-Flash when 41.8 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback) | GLM-5.3-Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 51.2 | 41.8 | −18.4% GLM-5.3-Flash is 18.4% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $5,241.59 | $305.52 | −94.2% GLM-5.3-Flash is 94.2% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 34.32s | 39.33s | +14.6% GLM-5.3-Flash is 14.6% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $10.0 / $50.0 | $0.15 / $0.50 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback): 18.4% less intelligence, 94.2% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 14.6% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) scores 56.00 for $4057.
- GLM-5.3-Flash is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback)GLM-5.3-FlashToday's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-1-high/glm-5-3-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-1-high/glm-5-3-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill