Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback) vs Ling 3.1 Flash 1019
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 by InclusionAI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Depends on your budget
Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallbac… scores 7.3 points higher (51.2 vs 43.9) but costs 3.4× as much to run the benchmark ($5242 vs $1552; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallbac… when you need intelligence above 43.9, and Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 when 43.9 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback) | Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 51.2 | 43.9 | −14.3% Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is 14.3% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $5,241.59 | $1,551.81 | −70.4% Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is 70.4% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 28.41s | Not reported | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $10.0 / $50.0 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback): 14.3% less intelligence, 70.4% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and end-to-end time not fully reported.
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.
- Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
Compare something else
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-1-high/ling-3-1-flash-1019 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-1-high/ling-3-1-flash-1019?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill