Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback) vs Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning)
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-27.
Depends on your budget
Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallbac… scores 29.8 points higher (51.2 vs 21.4) but costs 4.6× as much to run the benchmark ($5242 vs $1145; 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 21.4, and Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) when 21.4 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback) | Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 51.2 | 21.4 | −58.2% Qwen3.6 27B (Reasonin… is 58.2% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $5,241.59 | $1,145.36 | −78.1% Qwen3.6 27B (Reasonin… is 78.1% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 25.53s | 110.84s | +334.2% Qwen3.6 27B (Reasonin… is 334.2% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $10.0 / $50.0 | $0.60 / $3.60 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) vs Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback): 58.2% less intelligence, 78.1% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 334.2% slower end-to-end.
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.
- Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) 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/qwen3-6-27b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-1-high/qwen3-6-27b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill