Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) vs Muse Ember (Xhigh)
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or Muse Ember (Xhigh) by Meta? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-11-10.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) scores 4.6 points higher (38.7 vs 34.1) but costs 41× as much to run the benchmark ($3886 vs $95.7; 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 34.1, and Muse Ember (Xhigh) when 34.1 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) | Muse Ember (Xhigh) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 38.7 | 34.1 | −11.9% Muse Ember (Xhigh) is 11.9% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $3,885.94 | $95.73 | −97.5% Muse Ember (Xhigh) is 97.5% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 12.07s | 9.48s | −21.5% Muse Ember (Xhigh) is 21.5% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $10.0 / $50.0 | $0.10 / $0.50 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
Muse Ember (Xhigh) vs Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback): 11.9% less intelligence, 97.5% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 21.5% faster 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, Claude Fable 5.2 (Medium, Default Fallback) scores 56.40 for $3360.
- Muse Ember (Xhigh) is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback)Muse Ember (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/muse-ember-xhigh · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-1-low/muse-ember-xhigh?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill