Claude Fable 5.2 (Max, Default Fallback) vs Ling 3.1 Flash 1019
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5.2 (Max, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 by InclusionAI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-11-10.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Fable 5.2 (Max, Default Fallback) scores 35.0 points higher (64.6 vs 29.6) but costs 11× as much to run the benchmark ($22191 vs $2009; both flagship class). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Fable 5.2 (Max, Default Fallback) when you need intelligence above 29.6, and Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 when 29.6 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.2 (Max, Default Fallback) | Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 64.6 | 29.6 | −54.2% Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is 54.2% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $22,191.42 | $2,009.23 | −90.9% Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is 90.9% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 258.66s | Not reported | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $8.00 / $40.0 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs Claude Fable 5.2 (Max, Default Fallback): 54.2% less intelligence, 90.9% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and end-to-end time not fully reported.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Fable 5.2 (Max, Default Fallback) is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
- Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 54.60 for $1124.
Claude Fable 5.2 (Max, Default Fallback)Ling 3.1 Flash 1019Today'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-5-2/ling-3-1-flash-1019 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-2/ling-3-1-flash-1019?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill