Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback) vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, 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 (Max, Default Fallback) scores 12.3 points higher (53.4 vs 41.1) but costs 13× as much to run the benchmark ($13129 vs $1015; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback) when you need intelligence above 41.1, and Ling 3.1 Flash when 41.1 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback) | Ling 3.1 Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 53.4 | 41.1 | −23.0% Ling 3.1 Flash is 23.0% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $13,128.86 | $1,014.56 | −92.3% Ling 3.1 Flash is 92.3% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 224.39s | 13.56s | −94.0% Ling 3.1 Flash is 94.0% 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 (Max, Default Fallback): 23.0% less intelligence, 92.3% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 94.0% 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.
- 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 (Max, 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/ling-3-1-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-1/ling-3-1-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill