Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) vs Qwen3.7 Max
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or Qwen3.7 Max by Alibaba? 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 17.3 points higher (46.8 vs 29.5) but costs 1.4× as much to run the benchmark ($3158 vs $2277; both flagship class). Pick Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Qwen3.7 Max.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) | Qwen3.7 Max | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 46.8 | 29.5 | −37.0% Qwen3.7 Max is 37.0% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $3,157.66 | $2,277.12 | −27.9% Qwen3.7 Max is 27.9% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 10.73s | 16.64s | +55.1% Qwen3.7 Max is 55.1% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $10.0 / $50.0 | $2.50 / $7.50 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Qwen3.7 Max vs Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback): 37.0% less intelligence, 27.9% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 55.1% 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.
- Qwen3.7 Max 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)Qwen3.7 MaxToday'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/qwen3-7-max · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-1-low/qwen3-7-max?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill