Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) vs Granite 4.2 3B
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or Granite 4.2 3B by IBM? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) scores 37.7 points higher (46.8 vs 9.1) but costs 212× as much to run the benchmark ($3158 vs $14.9; flagship vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) when you need intelligence above 9.1, and Granite 4.2 3B when 9.1 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) | Granite 4.2 3B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 46.8 | 9.1 | −80.6% Granite 4.2 3B is 80.6% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $3,157.66 | $14.91 | −99.5% Granite 4.2 3B is 99.5% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 10.73s | 59.94s | +458.6% Granite 4.2 3B is 458.6% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $10.0 / $50.0 | $0.03 / $0.12 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Granite 4.2 3B vs Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback): 80.6% less intelligence, 99.5% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 458.6% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
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.
- Granite 4.2 3B is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Low) scores 21.50 for $10.6.
Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback)Granite 4.2 3BToday'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-low/granite-4-2-3b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-1-low/granite-4-2-3b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill