Claude Fable 5.1 vs DeepSeek-R1-0528
Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 56.3 to 24.2. DeepSeek-R1-0528 is 21.9x cheaper per token.
Anthropic · DeepSeek · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Claude Fable 5.1 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 56.3 to 24.2, ranking #2 overall.
In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Fable 5.1 wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, DeepSeek-R1-0528 is roughly 21.9x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Claude Fable 5.1 also accepts a larger context window (1,000,000 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Claude Fable 5.1
- overall performance matters — it scores 56.3 and ranks #2 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,000,000 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026
Choose DeepSeek-R1-0528
- cost matters — it's about 21.9x cheaper per token
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Individual benchmarks
7 reported for Claude Fable 5.1 · 16 for DeepSeek-R1-0528
Claude Fable 5.1 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam), while DeepSeek-R1-0528 is better at 0 benchmarks.
Claude Fable 5.1 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Claude Fable 5.1 ($10.00/1M tokens) is 20.0x more expensive than DeepSeek-R1-0528 ($0.50/1M tokens).
For output processing, Claude Fable 5.1 ($50.00/1M tokens) is 23.3x more expensive than DeepSeek-R1-0528 ($2.15/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Claude Fable 5.1 is more expensive than DeepSeek-R1-0528.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Claude Fable 5.1 accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to DeepSeek-R1-0528's 163,840 tokens. DeepSeek-R1-0528 can generate longer responses up to 163,840 tokens, while Claude Fable 5.1 is limited to 128,000 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Claude Fable 5.1 supports multimodal inputs, whereas DeepSeek-R1-0528 does not.
Claude Fable 5.1 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
Claude Fable 5.1
DeepSeek-R1-0528
License
Usage and distribution terms
Claude Fable 5.1 is licensed under a proprietary license, while DeepSeek-R1-0528 uses MIT.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Proprietary
Closed source
MIT
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Claude Fable 5.1 was released on 2026-09-01, while DeepSeek-R1-0528 was released on 2025-05-28.
Claude Fable 5.1 is 15 months newer than DeepSeek-R1-0528.
Sep 1, 2026
1 weeks ago
1.3yr newerMay 28, 2025
1.3 years ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
Claude Fable 5.1 is available from Anthropic. DeepSeek-R1-0528 is available from DeepInfra, DeepSeek, Novita.
Claude Fable 5.1
DeepSeek-R1-0528
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Claude Fable 5.1 and DeepSeek-R1-0528 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Claude Fable 5.1 vs DeepSeek-R1-0528.