Navigate
Advertise here

Claude Fable 5.1 (high) vs Qwen3.7 Max

The average score is effectively tied at 7.9 vs 7.9. Qwen3.7 Max has the lower benchmark cost at $0.492 vs $3.471. Qwen3.7 Max is faster at 7.85s vs 13.30s, with pass rates of 85.5% vs 69.6%.

Last updated at: 2026-10-01

Compared models

Rank
#98
Total Output Tokens
40,466
Response Time (avg)
13.30s
Total Cost
$3.471
Rank
#100
Total Output Tokens
20,670
Response Time (avg)
7.85s
Total Cost
$0.492
Recommended model Qwen3.7 Max

It has the best score here (7.9), while costing about 7.1x less than Claude Fable 5.1 (high).

Detailed comparison

Metric Claude Fable 5.1 Claude Fable 5.1 high Release: 2026-09-02 Qwen3.7 Max Qwen3.7 Max none Release: 2026-05-22
Score 7.9 7.9
Rank #98 #100
Reliability 10.0 9.9
Consistency 9.7 10.0
Attempts 69/69 69/69
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 85.5% 69.6%
Flaky tests 1 0
Total Runs 69 69
Cost per result 18.264 3.070
Total Cost $3.471 $0.492
Input Price $10.000 / 1M $1.475 / 1M
Output Price $50.000 / 1M $4.425 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 144,676 243,553
Output Tokens 8,184 20,670
Reasoning Tokens 32,282 0
Response Time (avg) 13.30s 7.85s
Response Time (max) 40.17s 80.34s
Response Time (total) 305.83s 180.65s
Parameters ~9.5T total (~878B active) ~1T total (~40B active)
Availability Closed Closed

Model generation showcase

Hamster playing table tennis

Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.

#98 Claude Fable 5.1

high
Cost
$0.384
Time
102.5s
Tokens
7,824 tok

#100 Qwen3.7 Max

none
Cost
$0.046
Time
195.0s
Tokens
12,171 tok

Top Models by Score

Score vs Total Cost

Response Time (avg)

Score vs Response Time (avg)

Total Output Tokens

Score vs Total Output Tokens

Category Breakdown

Coding Score Consistency Attempt pass rate Flaky tests Tests Correct Response Time (avg) Input Tokens Output Tokens Reasoning Tokens
Claude Fable 5.1 8.4 7.4 88.9% 1 13.91s 10,608 520 6,503
Qwen3.7 Max 5.5 10.0 33.3% 0 1.35s 7,911 582 0

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair