Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback) vs Grok 4.7 (High)
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or Grok 4.7 (High) by SpaceXAI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback) scores 7.1 points higher (53.4 vs 46.3) but costs 3.4× as much to run the benchmark ($13129 vs $3881; both flagship class). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback) when you need intelligence above 46.3, and Grok 4.7 (High) when 46.3 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback) | Grok 4.7 (High) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 53.4 | 46.3 | −13.3% Grok 4.7 (High) is 13.3% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $13,128.86 | $3,880.88 | −70.4% Grok 4.7 (High) is 70.4% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 201.72s | 25.34s | −87.4% Grok 4.7 (High) is 87.4% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $10.0 / $50.0 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
Grok 4.7 (High) vs Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback): 13.3% less intelligence, 70.4% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 87.4% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback) scores 57.60 for $8708.
- Grok 4.7 (High) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Kimi K3.1 Pro scores 55.10 for $3117.
Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback)Grok 4.7 (High)Today'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/grok-4-7-high · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-1/grok-4-7-high?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill