Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback) vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-27.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallbac… scores 11.3 points higher (51.2 vs 39.9) but costs 2.0× as much to run the benchmark ($5242 vs $2632; both flagship class). Pick Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallbac… when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback) | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 51.2 | 39.9 | −22.1% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 22.1% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $5,241.59 | $2,632.05 | −49.8% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 49.8% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 25.39s | 64.93s | +155.7% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 155.7% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $10.0 / $50.0 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback): 22.1% less intelligence, 49.8% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 155.7% 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.
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 53.60 for $2172.
Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback)Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BToday'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/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-1-high/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill