Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) vs Grok 4.6 (High)
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or Grok 4.6 (High) by SpaceXAI? 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 2.5 points higher (46.8 vs 44.3) but costs 1.6× as much to run the benchmark ($3158 vs $1963; flagship vs premium cost classes). Pick Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Grok 4.6 (High).
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) | Grok 4.6 (High) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 46.8 | 44.3 | −5.3% Grok 4.6 (High) is 5.3% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $3,157.66 | $1,962.90 | −37.8% Grok 4.6 (High) is 37.8% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 10.92s | 37.09s | +239.7% Grok 4.6 (High) is 239.7% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $10.0 / $50.0 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
Grok 4.6 (High) vs Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback): 5.3% less intelligence, 37.8% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 239.7% 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.
- Grok 4.6 (High) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback)Grok 4.6 (High)Today's Pareto 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/grok-4-6 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-1-low/grok-4-6?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill