Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium, Default Fallback) vs GPT-6.1 Terra (High)
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or GPT-6.1 Terra (High) by OpenAI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-27.
Depends on your budget
Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium, Default Fallb… scores 5.0 points higher (48.9 vs 43.9) but costs 17× as much to run the benchmark ($3983 vs $239; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium, Default Fallb… when you need intelligence above 43.9, and GPT-6.1 Terra (High) when 43.9 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium, Default Fallback) | GPT-6.1 Terra (High) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 48.9 | 43.9 | −10.2% GPT-6.1 Terra (High) is 10.2% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $3,983.28 | $238.53 | −94.0% GPT-6.1 Terra (High) is 94.0% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 19.58s | 11.16s | −43.0% GPT-6.1 Terra (High) is 43.0% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $10.0 / $50.0 | $1.00 / $5.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
GPT-6.1 Terra (High) vs Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium, Default Fallback): 10.2% less intelligence, 94.0% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 43.0% faster end-to-end.
Against the frontier
- Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium, Default Fallback) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Kimi K3.1 Pro scores 55.10 for $3117.
- GPT-6.1 Terra (High) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
Compare something else
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-1-medium/gpt-6-1-terra-high · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-1-medium/gpt-6-1-terra-high?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill