The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Fable 5.1 vs DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 56.3 to 32.7. DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) is 63.5x cheaper per token.

Anthropic · DeepSeek · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 56.3 to 32.7, 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-V3.2 (Thinking) is roughly 63.5x 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-V3.2 (Thinking)

  • cost matters — it's about 63.5x cheaper per token
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Fable 5.1
Anthropic
DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)
DeepSeek
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
56.3
#2
32.7
#102
Reasoning
53.3
#5
32.7
#100
Coding
35.0
#29
22.9
#77
Agents
41.9
#2
11.2
#109
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 1
0 of 1
Input price
$10.00 / M
$0.28 / M
Output price
$50.00 / M
$0.42 / M
Context window
1,000,000
131,072

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Claude Fable 5.1
DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)
Tool use
30.5#15
10.0#128
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

7 reported for Claude Fable 5.1 · 14 for DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)

1 shared

Claude Fable 5.1 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam), while DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.1 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Wed Sep 09 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) costs less

For input processing, Claude Fable 5.1 ($10.00/1M tokens) is 35.7x more expensive than DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) ($0.28/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Fable 5.1 ($50.00/1M tokens) is 119.0x more expensive than DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) ($0.42/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Fable 5.1 is more expensive than DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking).*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Wed Sep 09 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Fable 5.1
Input tokens$10.00
Output tokens$50.00
Best providerAnthropic
DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)
Input tokens$0.28
Output tokens$0.42
Best providerDeepSeek
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Claude Fable 5.1 accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)'s 131,072 tokens. Claude Fable 5.1 can generate longer responses up to 128,000 tokens, while DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) is limited to 65,536 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Fable 5.1
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)
Input131,072 tokens
Output65,536 tokens
Wed Sep 09 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Claude Fable 5.1 supports multimodal inputs, whereas DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) 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

Text
Images
Audio
Video

DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Fable 5.1 is licensed under a proprietary license, while DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) uses MIT.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Claude Fable 5.1

Proprietary

Closed source

DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Fable 5.1 was released on 2026-09-01, while DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) was released on 2025-12-01.

Claude Fable 5.1 is 9 months newer than DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking).

Claude Fable 5.1

Sep 1, 2026

1 weeks ago

9mo newer
DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)

Dec 1, 2025

9 months ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

Claude Fable 5.1 is available from Anthropic. DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) is available from DeepSeek.

Claude Fable 5.1

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $10.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $50.00/1M

DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)

deepseek logo
DeepSeek
Input Price:Input: $0.28/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.42/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Fable 5.1 and DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Fable 5.1
✓ Preferred
DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Fable 5.1 vs DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking).

Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 56.3 to 32.7. Claude Fable 5.1 is made by Anthropic and DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) is made by DeepSeek. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Claude Fable 5.1 compare to DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) in benchmarks?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores OSWorld 2.0: 77.9%, CursorBench v3.2: 73.4%, Humanity's Last Exam: 65.0%, GDPval-AA: 61.8%, Terminal-Bench 4.0: 55.8%. DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) scores AIME 2025: 93.1%, HMMT 2025: 90.2%, MMLU-Pro: 85.0%, LiveCodeBench: 83.3%, GPQA: 82.4%.

Is Claude Fable 5.1 cheaper than DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)?

DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) is 35.7x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Fable 5.1 costs $10.00/M input and $50.00/M output via anthropic. DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) costs $0.28/M input and $0.42/M output via deepseek.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Fable 5.1 and DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)?

Claude Fable 5.1 supports 1.0M tokens and DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) supports 131K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude Fable 5.1 and DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (56.3 vs 32.7), context window (1.0M vs 131K), input pricing ($10.00 vs $0.28/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Fable 5.1 and DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)?

Claude Fable 5.1 is developed by Anthropic and DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) is developed by DeepSeek.

Related comparisons