Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) vs Grok 4.6 (Xhigh)
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or Grok 4.6 (Xhigh) by SpaceXAI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-27.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) scores 2.6 points higher (46.8 vs 44.2) but costs 1.4× as much to run the benchmark ($3158 vs $2242; both flagship class). Pick Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Grok 4.6 (Xhigh).
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) | Grok 4.6 (Xhigh) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 46.8 | 44.2 | −5.6% Grok 4.6 (Xhigh) is 5.6% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $3,157.66 | $2,241.91 | −29.0% Grok 4.6 (Xhigh) is 29.0% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 10.89s | 43.76s | +301.8% Grok 4.6 (Xhigh) is 301.8% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $10.0 / $50.0 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
Grok 4.6 (Xhigh) vs Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback): 5.6% less intelligence, 29.0% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 301.8% 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 (Xhigh) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 53.60 for $2172.
Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback)Grok 4.6 (Xhigh)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-xhigh · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-1-low/grok-4-6-xhigh?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill