Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback) vs Llama 4 Scout
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or Llama 4 Scout by Meta? 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 (Max, Default Fallback) scores 46.9 points higher (53.4 vs 6.5) but costs 178× as much to run the benchmark ($13129 vs $73.6; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback) when you need intelligence above 6.5, and Llama 4 Scout when 6.5 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback) | Llama 4 Scout | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 53.4 | 6.5 | −87.8% Llama 4 Scout is 87.8% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $13,128.86 | $73.56 | −99.4% Llama 4 Scout is 99.4% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 201.58s | 4.97s | −97.5% Llama 4 Scout is 97.5% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $10.0 / $50.0 | $0.18 / $0.66 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
Llama 4 Scout vs Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback): 87.8% less intelligence, 99.4% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 97.5% 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.
- Llama 4 Scout is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Xhigh) scores 34.60 for $66.8.
Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback)Llama 4 ScoutToday'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/llama-4-scout · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-1/llama-4-scout?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill