Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium, Default Fallback) vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or Ling 3.1 Flash by InclusionAI? 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 (Medium, Default Fallb… scores 7.8 points higher (48.9 vs 41.1) but costs 3.9× as much to run the benchmark ($3983 vs $1015; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium, Default Fallb… when you need intelligence above 41.1, and Ling 3.1 Flash when 41.1 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium, Default Fallback) | Ling 3.1 Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 48.9 | 41.1 | −16.0% Ling 3.1 Flash is 16.0% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $3,983.28 | $1,014.56 | −74.5% Ling 3.1 Flash is 74.5% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 14.35s | 13.56s | −5.5% Ling 3.1 Flash is 5.5% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $10.0 / $50.0 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash vs Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium, Default Fallback): 16.0% less intelligence, 74.5% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 5.5% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
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.
- Ling 3.1 Flash is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium, Default Fallback)Ling 3.1 FlashToday'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-medium/ling-3-1-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-1-medium/ling-3-1-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill