Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) vs Ling 3.1 Flash 1019
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 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 2026-10-24.
Depends on your budget
Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) scores 5.7 points higher (49.6 vs 43.9) but costs 7.2× as much to run the benchmark ($11161 vs $1552; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) when you need intelligence above 43.9, and Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 when 43.9 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 49.6 | 43.9 | −11.5% Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is 11.5% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $11,160.86 | $1,551.81 | −86.1% Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is 86.1% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 71.92s | Not reported | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $10.0 / $50.0 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback): 11.5% less intelligence, 86.1% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and end-to-end time not fully reported.
Against the frontier
- Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 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 1019 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
Compare something else
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5/ling-3-1-flash-1019 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5/ling-3-1-flash-1019?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill