Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Max)
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Max) 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 7.3 points higher (46.8 vs 39.5) but costs 4.7× as much to run the benchmark ($3158 vs $672; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) when you need intelligence above 39.5, and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Max) when 39.5 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Max) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 46.8 | 39.5 | −15.6% DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (… is 15.6% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $3,157.66 | $671.96 | −78.7% DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (… is 78.7% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 10.73s | 15.37s | +43.2% DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (… is 43.2% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $10.0 / $50.0 | $0.29 / $1.20 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Max) vs Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback): 15.6% less intelligence, 78.7% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 43.2% 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 V4.1 Flash (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
Compare something else
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-1-low/deepseek-v4-1-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-1-low/deepseek-v4-1-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill