Claude Fable 5.2 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (High)
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5.2 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (High) by DeepSeek? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-11-10.
Depends on your budget
Claude Fable 5.2 (Xhigh, Default Fallba… scores 33.6 points higher (62.2 vs 28.6) but costs 31× as much to run the benchmark ($11742 vs $384; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Fable 5.2 (Xhigh, Default Fallba… when you need intelligence above 28.6, and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (High) when 28.6 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.2 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (High) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 62.2 | 28.6 | −54.0% DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1… is 54.0% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $11,741.62 | $384.14 | −96.7% DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1… is 96.7% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 102.03s | 17.48s | −82.9% DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1… is 82.9% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $8.00 / $40.0 | $0.30 / $1.20 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (High) vs Claude Fable 5.2 (Xhigh, Default Fallback): 54.0% less intelligence, 96.7% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 82.9% faster end-to-end.
Against the frontier
- Claude Fable 5.2 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (High) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Terra (High) scores 42.40 for $267.
Compare something else
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-2-xhigh/deepseek-v4-1-flash-1017-high · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-2-xhigh/deepseek-v4-1-flash-1017-high?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill