Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) vs DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25)
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) by DeepSeek? 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 (Low, Default Fallback) scores 35.4 points higher (46.8 vs 11.4) but costs 6.9× as much to run the benchmark ($3158 vs $461; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) when you need intelligence above 11.4, and DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) when 11.4 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) | DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 46.8 | 11.4 | −75.6% DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) is 75.6% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $3,157.66 | $460.74 | −85.4% DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) is 85.4% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 11.25s | 18.69s | +66.1% DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) is 66.1% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $10.0 / $50.0 | $2.00 / $4.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) vs Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback): 75.6% less intelligence, 85.4% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 66.1% slower end-to-end.
Against the frontier
- Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Kimi K3.1 Pro scores 55.10 for $3117.
- DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
Compare something else
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-1-low/deepseek-r1-0120 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-1-low/deepseek-r1-0120?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill