Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) vs DeepSeek V4 Flash 0420 (High)
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or DeepSeek V4 Flash 0420 (High) 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 22.4 points higher (46.8 vs 24.4) but costs 26× as much to run the benchmark ($3158 vs $121; 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 24.4, and DeepSeek V4 Flash 0420 (High) when 24.4 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) | DeepSeek V4 Flash 0420 (High) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 46.8 | 24.4 | −47.9% DeepSeek V4 Flash 042… is 47.9% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $3,157.66 | $121.20 | −96.2% DeepSeek V4 Flash 042… is 96.2% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 10.92s | Not reported | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $10.0 / $50.0 | $0.11 / $0.23 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0420 (High) vs Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback): 47.9% less intelligence, 96.2% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and end-to-end time not fully reported.
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 Flash 0420 (High) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores 37.90 for $110.
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-flash-0420-high · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-1-low/deepseek-v4-flash-0420-high?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill