Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) vs Qwen3 Coder Next
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or Qwen3 Coder Next by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) scores 37.6 points higher (46.8 vs 9.2) but costs 7.8× as much to run the benchmark ($3158 vs $405; 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 9.2, and Qwen3 Coder Next when 9.2 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) | Qwen3 Coder Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 46.8 | 9.2 | −80.3% Qwen3 Coder Next is 80.3% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $3,157.66 | $405.10 | −87.2% Qwen3 Coder Next is 87.2% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 10.34s | 6.20s | −40.0% Qwen3 Coder Next is 40.0% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $10.0 / $50.0 | $0.31 / $1.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Qwen3 Coder Next vs Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback): 80.3% less intelligence, 87.2% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 40.0% 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, Kimi K3.1 Pro scores 55.10 for $3117.
- Qwen3 Coder Next is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback)Qwen3 Coder NextToday'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/qwen3-coder-next · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-1-low/qwen3-coder-next?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill