Claude Fable 5.1 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) vs Granite 4.2 30B
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5.1 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or Granite 4.2 30B by IBM? 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 (Xhigh, Default Fallba… scores 40.5 points higher (53.2 vs 12.7) but costs 82× as much to run the benchmark ($9063 vs $111; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Fable 5.1 (Xhigh, Default Fallba… when you need intelligence above 12.7, and Granite 4.2 30B when 12.7 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) | Granite 4.2 30B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 53.2 | 12.7 | −76.1% Granite 4.2 30B is 76.1% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $9,063.11 | $110.83 | −98.8% Granite 4.2 30B is 98.8% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 108.69s | 65.19s | −40.0% Granite 4.2 30B is 40.0% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $10.0 / $50.0 | $0.16 / $0.65 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Granite 4.2 30B vs Claude Fable 5.1 (Xhigh, Default Fallback): 76.1% less intelligence, 98.8% 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 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback) scores 57.60 for $8708.
- Granite 4.2 30B is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores 37.90 for $110.
Claude Fable 5.1 (Xhigh, Default Fallback)Granite 4.2 30BToday'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-xhigh/granite-4-2-30b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-1-xhigh/granite-4-2-30b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill